New Meanings

In my post Welcome to France I covered an article from Slate titled Dozens of Activists Turn Selves in Spartacus-Style for Crime” of Toppling Durham Confederate Statue.  I commented that it was awful that Slate referred to the destruction of a public monument as a “crime” with sarcastic quotation marks.

Of course the destruction of a monument is a crime.  It doesn’t matter if the monument is offensive.  It doesn’t matter if the the people that destroyed the monument feel that it glorifies racism and slavery.  It is still a crime to attack public or private property.

Since then, things have gotten worse.

Professors Rally Around a Student Who Became the Public Face of a Confederate Statue’s Fall.  Takiyah Thompson was the person responsible for pulling down the Confederate monument on Durham.  She is also a communist, a member of the Workers World Party and a supporter of the North Korean regime.  One college professor who saw her act of vandalism said that she was a hero.

“She is an inspiration to watch. She gave a brilliant interview, was arrested, came out and had a big smile on her face. She is resilient and smart and knows she’s done something that has awakened the conversation around race.”

Other professors have tried to get Ms. Thompson a scholarship.  Yes, public university professors are trying to reward her, financially, for being a criminal.

Over in Berkeley, Yvette Felarca was arrested for inciting a riot.  Felarca is a teacher (of course she is) and a member of BAMN – By Any Means Necessary – an ultra violent Leftist organisation.

Here she is punching some guy in Berkeley.

And here she is being insane on Tucker Carlson.

Well, during her arraignment she said in court “standing up against fascism and the rise of Nazism and fascism in this country is not a crime, we have the right to defend ourselves.”

Except she wasn’t defending herself.  She was attacking a guy for carrying a flag.  Again we have someone is trying to redefine the word crime to not including violence against something that offends her.

Dartmouth Professor (again, a Leftist teacher) Mark Bray said the same thing over the weekend on Meet The Press.

In an insane bit of coverage by CNN on Antifa, this concept ware reiterated.

Antifa activists often don’t hesitate to destroy property, which many see as the incarnation of unfair wealth distribution.

“Violence against windows — there’s no such thing as violence against windows,” a masked Antifa member in Union Square told CNN. “Windows don’t have — they’re not persons. And even when they are persons, the people we fight back against, they are evil. They are the living embodiment, they are the second coming of Hitler.”

Crow explained the ideology this way: “Don’t confuse legality and morality. Laws are made of governments, not of men,” echoing the words of John Adams.

Who on the Left cares about property rights when something is offensive.  It can be destroyed without consequence.

Here is the problem where is ultimately ends.  Some poor dude in Colorado got stabbed because of his haircut.  Apparently his high fade was just too neo-Nazi chic and some radical had to teach him a lesson.

When the message is “it’s not a crime to attack and destroy things you find offensive” we are all fair game to these radicals.

3 Replies to “New Meanings”

  1. The neo-marxists and their media lackeys had been hoping for a Charlottsville since Dylan Roof. Sure, there was the Umpqua Shooter, The Navy Yard shooter, Chris Dornier, Bryce Williams shooting those racist white reporters on live TV, the Orlando Nightclub, and the Dallas, Baton Rouge, and (several) NYC police assassinations. Not to mention all the riots from Ferguson to Baltimore and beyond but they needed more Dylan Roofs and George Zimmermans to push the narrative. If they can’t push the narrative, they can’t continue to dismantle the Bill of Rights. That’s why there is such a push now to purge the internet of free speech outlets. The internet has become the last true free speech “relief valve” from the inevitable violence on the horizon.

  2. When the message is “it’s not a crime to attack and destroy things you find offensive” we are all fair game to these radicals.

    But they’re forgetting a VERY important point: The law doesn’t just protect us from them; it also protects THEM from US.

    If they get what they want — if the law is redefined so that destroying anything one finds offensive is no longer against the law — they’ll quickly learn that a WHOLE LOT OF AMERICANS are deeply offended by their antics…

    … and the law no longer protects them from righteous retaliation.

    Equal protection, b!tches. Mess with it at your own risk.

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.