Streetfighting and the Alt-Right as the decepticons and false oppositions - Sunday 13th of August to Saturday 19th of August

Like most people, I have been left somewhat perplexed at how quickly the divisions in the U.S. have metastasised into the sorts of flares which in many countries are the prelude to violent revolution, in almost all cases as part of orchestrated political revolutions. I have no doubt that the leftist violence we see is pre-planned and directed towards a politcal end. Some have claimed that there are paid actors, but I am more sceptical, believing that there is not exactly a shortage of stupid leftists who are itching for a fight.

This event took place last week, but the fallout took place mainly during this week, so it is worth taking time to address it.

First the facts: I don't have all of them, so we shall have to dispense with a factual reading.

The only facts I do have and the only one that is relevant:

  • The protest was over removing a statue of what I understand to be the greatest general of the Confederate army, Robert E. Lee.
  •  The protest over removing the statue was legal and had a permit.
  • Among those protesting was a contingent of white supremacists of various sorts, and how large they were in proportion to the rest I honestly have no doubt, nor have I bothered to check. They might all have been white supremacists, or they may have been 1%. It really is irrelevant.

Nobody can with any credibility label me a white supremacist, so I can with full confidence state that those protesting over the removal of the statue were not to blame - not one bit. Let's call them statuists, because it seems very offensive to the truth to label them all white supremacists.

The violence was initiated by the left, as is par for the course, and the statuists retaliated. Many of the statuists, and perhaps of these a greater number were white supremacists, came armed, and that proved wise as the police did nothing to police the rally. That is perfectly understandable, and would prove wise, given that they were attacked, and given that the leftists in the U.S. have been using violence for well over 2 years now to shut down any debate regarding any substantive issue. We saw this at the Trump rallies with various leftists groups, and we have seen this violence at universities. One would have expected the leftists to attack the rally violently, so it is no surprise that the statuists were prepared for confrontation.

The leftists had no permit, so their protest was illegal. If they wanted to avoid violence they could easily have applied for a permit and held their rally at a later date, instead of focusing all their attention on a legal rally. The police were clearly given orders not to police the rally so that the violence would be visible for all. There are 2 possible reasons for this, the one being that the politicans are in favour of leftist violence, and the other being that they are in favour of any violence which creates social unrest in the U.S. which will enable them to have some sort of political machination against Donald Trump.

It is a running joke by me, and one I picked up from CrossTalk on Russia Today, that the only reason that Trump is still president is that the U.S. does not have an embassy in Washington. In other words, what we are seeing in the U.S. is an orchestrated campaign to create chaos in order to legitimise regime change, from exactly the same playbook that we have seen used in Ukraine (twice), Egypt, Kenya, Syria, Libya, Iran, Yugoslavia and Greece, to name but a few. It is probably the same book playing out in Venezuela now, although in Venezuela's case, the collapse of the country has absolutely everything to do with the socialist policies of the rules than anything else, so although it would seem the U.S. is formenting chaos, we would probably have seen the chaos regardless.

In any case, Trump had every right in the world to state that the violence was on "many sides", although a more truthful account would have pinned the initiation of the violence firmly on the leftists.

This brings me to the case of the Alt-Right, who are clearly playing the role of false opposition in all of this. While I am not sure that the leftist protesters were paid vandalisers, I am less sceptical about those 'white supremacists' being paid actors.

An article on The Remnant chronicled the meteoric media-driven rise of a prominent member of this group, and one issue which perplexed them was how it has come to be that this 'movement' and its leaders have received so much free publicity when the media completely ignores the Catholic opposition and in fact any principled opposition. In fact, we saw it with Ron Paul: What the media wants silenced it ignores.

It also questioned the credibility of many of its leaders, who seem to have come out of nowhere and who seem to have had leftist leanings. None of them are particularly interested in public or private morality, and for the most part they seem to be leftists who detest non-white people, but who are perfectly okay with leftists policies on the whole, apart from, perhaps, wholesale confiscation of private property, communism-style.

It seems at least plausible to me that the Alt-Right is a false opposition movement designed either to:

  • Discredit the movement on which Donald Trump rode to his presidency
  • De-Christianise the opposition to the political elite by making the oppostion seem abominable, and therely alieaning Christians
  • Absorb all the evil of the general leftist trend of the society into a movement which seems to oppose it at first sight, but which in practice does not
  • Distract media attention from the issues on which Trump vowed to focus
  • Divert political attention towards sideshows and force Donald Trump into neo-con policies abroad in order to focus American attention away from domestic chaos

The list is not by any means exclusive but the point I want to get across is that there is something deeply rotten about the Alt-Right movement. Even in the off-chance that it is not a false opposition, its racialist and secularist ideology seems to be something which no Catholic can accept, given that it has subsumed all of the errors which have led the U.S. and the West into the precise situation in which it finds itself today, namely, eclipsing the Gospel with neo-pagan ideas such as racial superiority.

As for the debate on statues, my general principle is that left can never be right and I am yet to find a topic on which the left is right both in principle and in substance. If were were to start taking down all statues which offend at least some people then there would be no statue anywhere left standing since statues are principally erected in honour of people who led one group in something against another group.

More important, however, is that the removal of statues is something which happens after a revolution has taken place and the victorious side wants to stamp home its victory by destroying all that came before. What is remarkable in the U.S. is that the leftists want to take down statues without having won a revolution, and they must not be allowed to do that. By all means, if they want to take down statues, let them first declare war, and let them win that war against opponents who are both better armed and generally tougher breed.

I'll conclude with a warning about slippery slopes: They are real.

A direct prelude to this incident can be seen in what happened a few years ago after an alleged white supremacist shot up a black American church  in some Southern U.S. state, Carolina I believe it was. The governor of the state it turns out is Nikki Haley, who I presume is the same Nikki Haley who is making all sorts of war-mongering sounds at the U.N. nowadays. I have never liked that woman, even though she is anti-abortion, because she always seemed a bit dislikeable for some reason, and now that I know she was the governnor, my uneasiness at her seems well-justified. In any case, she caved and removed all confederate flags if memory serves me correct.

That emboldened leftists into making all sorts of ridiculous demands, knowing that politicians would simply roll over and cave in instead of facing up to a hostile media. We saw the same thing with Donald Trump during the campaign, although to his credit he did not back down, and neither did he this time around when the media confronted him over his right assertion that the blame in Charlottesville fell on many sides. If more non-leftists had the backbone of Trump - at least with regards to the media - the U.S. would be a more sane place, and this stupidity would never have been allowed to get this far. As it is, the insane seem to be running what is quickly becoming an asylum.

For that, everybody is to blame except traditional Catholics and me, as usual.