Fightin’ Words is a special Doom report.
Somehow through the years screeching harpies and bloated Karens, and the soy-drenched beta white males who duck behind them, have developed the idea that they are allowed to yell at the top of their voices the most vile, reckless, hate-filled demonic abuse at police and other authorities, and that the police must stand rock still and take it, whatever it is and however long it lasts.
If some blue-haired cellphone-wielding land whale or lesbian tattoo-infested anemic, unprovoked, started relentless screaming in any man’s face back in the good old days of 2019, she get slapped. And she’d have it coming.
There are hundreds of videos of these women, and of what passes for men on the left, loosing a barrage of profanity and threats at cops. It goes on and on and on and on some more. If the cop so much as shifts his position, these women freak and hold their cellphones in front of them. It’s as if they think this will protect them should violence begin.
On the other hand, any police violence now, no matter how justified or needed, is “evidence” the police are guilty of crimes against humanity, and that police forces need to be dismantled and replaced by Federal Thought Patrols.
It used to also be, in that dimly remembered year of our Lord 2019, there was a thing called the “doctrine of fighting words.” Once a harridan became too unruly and crossed the line, she could be muffled. Common law recognized that some speech goes too far and causes fights. Every judge in days or yore knew some people were just asking for it.
Why, even in the polite Great White North, fighting words is a crime. “Public incitement of hatred. Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime].”
Same thing in the USA, more or less. Which means baying “Kill the Police!” at the head of a mob charging down on a line of cops used to be considered fighting words. And the cops used to be allowed to knock some sense into this kind of “mostly peaceful protest.”
The doctrine hasn’t disappeared entirely, of course. Blacks are still allowed, nay, encouraged, to be triggered into violence, even fatal violence, by hearing rap lyrics—if spoken by whites.
Anyway, many of us would still approve if cops gave their abusers what they deserve. Alas, except for blacks, the doctrine is dead. Not only that, but it is no longer illegal to start riots, tear down public property, vandalize, steal, commit mayhem, even murder (how many were killed in the riots so far? Twenty? More? Heard about them on TV, have you?). Any acts done under the sage guidance of Black Lives Matter is now acceptable and legal. Take over a city? Why not? Prosecutors won’t bother you. The media will cheer you. Politicians will bow to you.
The left is goading itself with fighting words. You can sense it. They want to unleash a wave of violence and begin to kill, as they do in all leftist revolutions. Yet there is a natural reluctance to taking a life, plus they’re still not entirely convinced they can get away with open murder. Each knows they individually can’t get away with it. But in a mob, yes, they could. So they stoke the mob.
Ann Barnhardt posted a video of the Seattle insurrections—supported by their cowardly and complicit government—in which a black guy leads the rabble “Does anybody know what happened to the people who did not get on board with the French Revolution?” “Chopped,” came the answer. The black guys says he’s serious and that it’s not a joke. He reiterates “Chopped.” I can imagine a few lefty whites who’d slip their necks into the guillotine because of their tremendous guilt of being “racists”.
Incidentally, the insurrectionists have renamed their illegal encampment CHOP. And the city of Seattle bent over, took it, and begged for more, giving the criminals a concrete border. Armed insurrection is no longer illegal. Not if you’re fighting “racists”.
There’s a prog Blue Cheka running the Palmer Report. To goad the mob, he tweeted then deleted (but it was saved), “Conservatives CANNOT be teachers, police officers, doctors, lawyers, coaches, or bosses. It’s constitutionally unfair to others who are subjected to conservative’s deranged judgement. Conservatives can do menial work, until they’re ready to join the human race.”
He has others, one in which he generously suggests the State should pay for conservatives’ reeducation camps.
There’s another video from the insurrectionists showing a beat down of a Christian who tried to preach to them. He, too, was subject to a caterwauling from some fat ugly greasy haired woman.
As one instance of thousands, a Blue Cheka reporter posted the photo a football coach who wore a t-shirt advertising a news channel the Blue Cheka did not like. The Blue Cheka encouraged the mob to go after this “racist” man. We can only pray this Blue Cheka, and all of them like him, get the same treatment. The left does eat itself first in these things.
The coach caved and apologized, proving himself to be just as cowardly as the Blue Cheka. The Blue Cheka’s doxxing was immoral, and if a bad thing happened to the coach because of it, he deserved our sympathy. But he surrendered his values to save his skin, and now what happens to him—for the mob never forgives—he deserves.
I’ve warned you before, and I here warn again, that most do not know what is happening. The media is outright lying about Seattle, and about the riots. The media is complicit. They mention, say, a statue being torn down, as if this is the most natural thing in the world. But it’s illegal. Or used to be.
Tearing down public property is a violent crime, a riot. Riots are not legal. The violent mob in new Mexico, in New York City, in DC, in Minneapolis, and everywhere else, should have been met with lethal force to disperse them. It wasn’t. It won’t be. Our enemies call these riots “peaceful protests.” People—I should say racists—who have homes in CHOP can’t move back in, but all journalists and all politicians tell them to f*** off.
Many in our government actively conspire against us, or don’t care about anything except their own skins. No one is coming to help you. But do not give up hope. There are some real men left.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here
I hope you are right – that they are going to keep pushing until they are pushed back by harder, more honorable men.
Speak all you want, but remember the Left does not care, except to use your words against you. The Republicans care for nothing put their personal comfort. The conservatives have conserved nothing.
When words fail, when voting is useless, when courts are corrupted, only force matters. Why do you think the Left owns the streets? Because they fight with words and fists. The time to ponder and pontificate is past. It is time to take action, or lose everything. Gird you loins, polish your steel, count your rounds, and man up.
It only takes 3 percent.
The left owns the street because they have broad and deep financial, political, institutional, and state support and tolerance. They have been organizing and planning since at least the 30s. We associate the left with the drop outs we see in Antifa but we are looking at their equivalent of cannon fodder.
They control the civil service apparatus at federal, state, and major local levels. They control nearly all universities, most major media, dozens of associations, non profits, NGOs, etc. for every one of ours. They appear to be dominant inside major law enforcement agencies at the federal level and have enough courts and DAs to protect or ram through what they want. Believe it or not they’ve “earned” a lot of community support through prolonged constituency services and long term support of their base.
They are not dumb or weak. We are unorganized and easily led by the nose. We’ve swallowed a ton of “conservative“ or “libertarian” ideas like abandon the cities (“rural America is the real America”), never send your kids to the Ivy League (‘they’ll be corrupted”), even abandoning college altogether for “dirty jobs” (or just to study STEM to “make money” regardless of outsourcing and H1Bs).
In other words abandon any chance of being close to or possessing anything like real power or influence. Tell your progeny they’re on their own (“build character”), basically ignore centuries of accumulated wisdom on religious and spiritual development, what constitutes a healthy community, even meaningful family formation and preservation.
It’s going to get lots worse before enough folks have had enough. Take of yourself and your family.
As Dr. E. Michael Jones observed (“Spielburg’s Munich” Feb. 2006, Culture Wars Magazine) change came to America via movies and putative intellectuals.
Jones notes that Hollywood was a Jewish operation from the get go and it produced many Jewish themed movies. He says that everything began to change in the 1960s with the appearance and acceptance of the novels of Bernard Malamud and Saul Bellow and the movies of Woody Allen and that was about the time that the Jews changed the rules of American discourse.
Jewish critics like Stanley Fish and Jacques Derrida conquered literally criticism and through it they changed the rules for discourse in America via the vehicle know as the New Criticism and many GI’s began to go to college and were successfully propagandised into this new intellectual cult.
Stanley Fish declared that there was no such reality as a text and that not just anybody was qualified to interpret the meaning of the written word – only certain men (Jewish, interestingly enough) were qualified. to assign meaning.
At the same time Jacques Derrida was teaching at Yale that the interpretation of texts was so damn difficult that no-one could do it.
It was not too long before Fish and Derrida became dominant and their insane theories became authoritative and if Joe or Joanne American wanted to speak about what a text means to them then what they claimed was stupid because only the Jews were qualified to do so and we know that because the Jews, Fish and Derrida, said so and so discourse in America was well on its way to become Talmudic.
The Talmud is more authoritative than The Torah as a few minutes reading the Jewish Encyclopedia reveals.
And just like Jews were/are kicked out of the synagogue for ideas unapproved by certain Rabbis, those who interpreted texts differently than the secular rabbis, Fish and Derrida, were cast out of the Academy.
It was Stanley Fish who declared that in America there was no free speech and so the old protestant ethos of free speech was exiled and newly installed as authority was the fisher of mental delinquents, Fish and Derrida.
The new rules of speech became known as political correctness (Cultural Marxism) and so now everything in America is Talmudic.
Jones, and many others also, have had dynamic silence applied to them and his character is under constant assault by the Talmudic Terrorists and many putative Christians can’t wait to condemn him also.
This is just a short and condensed recapitulation of Jones’s explanation.
In any event, the Feb, 2006 Issue “Spielburg’s Munich: Assassination and Character Assassination”” issue case be bought for a few books at the Culture Wars web site.
To understand what has happened to America, buy it.
Not sure what point was intended with the tweeted video of the Louisiana sheriff’s captain talking tough.
A couple facts:
That video was from a series he recorded before 2016. He was fired in 2016 because of his videos, and this one in particular.
So, no, the video is not 2020’s “Silent Majority.” He’s roadkill on the PC-Prog highway, 4 years dead roadkill. Don’t know where he is now. Maybe he is actively resisting the PC-Prog destruction. But that video is not a true picture into Normals today.
“While details are scarce, there was apparently some friction between Sheriff Bobby Guidroz and Higgins over the direction of his videos. Higgins had come under fire recently from the ACLU for a particularly tough-talking video that called out “The Gremlins Gang…”
Is there a Silent Majority? Could be….
Jacques Derrida conquered literally criticism…
“As Dr. E. Michael Jones observed (“Spielburg’s Munich” Feb. 2006, Culture Wars Magazine) change came to America via movies and putative intellectuals.”
The explanation of the destruction of Normal-American culture, provided by Jones, as described by you, is like examining a Van Gogh painting through a drinking straw. Describing that tiny section of the painting seen through the straw, while technically “true,” completely misses the holistic context of the painting.
The Comintern, beginning in 1920, launched a covert influence operation designed to destroy Normal American culture. It was led by the genius of influence operations, Willi Muenzenberg. He specifically targeted the transmission belts of American culture: the media, education/academia, and Hollywood.
He created front organizations, movements, and seeded them with Willing Accomplices. Each had a high-sounding ideal, but the message of all was: America is a racist, sexist, xenophobic, imperialist, capitalist hellhole. And it must be changed.
And that is exactly the beliefs of PC-Progressives today. That’s who/how/why/where/when those beliefs originated.
Muenzenberg’s operations attacked American Normal culture from the roots. His operations were pure genius. Those who joined in found they did not need to think for themselves. Once they embraced the hatred of Normal America, they enjoyed enhanced social status in the PC-Prog social circles. No thinking required. The circle of PC-Prog believers was like a self-licking ice cream cone–it just kept on going and going. His only mistake was the timing–he thought he could destroy America in six or eight years. It ended up taking 100 years. But the success is all Muenzenberg’s.
So, yes, Fish, et al were PC-Prog haters of Normal America. Yes, their little piece of Muenzenberg’s operation helped in the destruction of Normal America. But, no, they did not originate it, and were very likely marginally effective–compared to Muenzenberg’s operations in all segments of our culture.
The BLM movement is an exact replica of Muenzenberg’s first two influence operations, in the 1920s:
1. Sacco and Vanzetti: Muenzenberg is the one who seized on this case, dispatched his operators to build the front organizations, organized and directed the mass protests. Payload: “America is irredeemably xenophobic.”
2. Scottsboro Boys: Again, Muenzenberg is the one who seized on this case, dispatched his operators to build the front organizations, organized and directed the mass protests. Payload: “America is irredeemably racist.”
Copy and Paste into browser to get a copy of the issue summarizing how political correctness came to America
Hoyos: Agreed. Too many decades of “heads in the sand” aHnd denial of reality on the part of the Right, assuming they were ever different from the left. We are toast and it’s what Americans wanted. If they didn’t want it, they would have stopped watching the NFL and drinking beer, got off their couch fannies and fought back. It’s too late now—the uber rich own it all and Americans did not/do not care in the least.
Michael Dowd: I estimate several generations.
Amateur: I see conspiracy and belief the ovens will return, among other things in your comment. The hatred for Jews is incredible.
The Silent Majority really needs to go home now and let the minority burn their world to the ground with no services available. Finding a way around actually action seems to be their specialty.
Amateur: I see conspiracy and belief the ovens will return, among other things in your comment.
Consider Haldol to treat your hallucinations.
The hatred for Jews is incredible.
Yes, facts are evidence of hatred of the Jews. Joe Sobran was right in observing that antisemitism used to be a word applied to those who hated Jews whereas now antisemitism is a label applied to those whom the Jews hate.
There was not one- not one- hateful letter, to say nothing about a hateful word, that Jones wrote in describing how Fish and Derrida destroyed the protestant concept of Free Speech in America.
So, you tell us, Sheri. Who it was that kilt free speech in America (Constitutionally recognized right) and replaced in with Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism?
Perhaps it was the Mormons?
October 1976: The Jewish takeover of American Discourse
In October 1976, Leo Pfeffer arrived in Philadelphia to give a talk entitled “Issues that Divide: the Triumph of Secular Humanism.” In that talk, Pfeffer declared Victory in the culture wars and announced the Jews had defeated the Catholics in their 40 years war over American culture. The terms of the Carthaginian peace imposed on the defeated American Catholics included abortion, pornography, the loss of Catholic academe, the redefinition of deviance, and the transformation of discourse. In a formal sense, i.e., in reference to literary criticism, that meant war on Logos. It also meant the end of the New Criticism as everyman’s democratic
version of Sola Scriptura and its replacement with Talmudic exegesis. Catholics who began their literary careers learning the Protestant rule that every man had the right to interpret his own text, now had to be re-trained in rules of discourse according to which the Rabbi was always right.
At around the same time that Woody Allen was being celebrated as the great American genius, Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish changed the rules of discourse in American academic circles. Literary criticism was no longer Protestant; it was Talmudic. Those who signed up for literature classes to learn how to read a poem,now learned that there was, as Fish put it, “no text.” No text meant any constitutional principle could be subverted by Talmudic reasoning by rabbis like Leo Pfeffer; and that any human right, such as the right to life, could be subverted similarly. No text meant there was no such thing as nature, as the campaign to legitimatize homosexuality showed. It also meant there was no substance or being,as Derrida’s attack on “onto-theology” showed. There was a deeper grammar to this discussion, which eventuated in the campus political correctness speech codes of the 1990s.
The heart of that code wasn’t racial; it wasn’t feminist; it wasn’t homosexual; it was Jewish and expressing Jewish culture at its worst. Political correctness was the final expression of the Talmudic redefinition of American discourse
which had begun in the ’70s under the direction of Jewish critical theorists like Fish and Derrida.
In 1992, Fish authored an essay, “There’s no such Thing as Free Speech and It’s a Good Thing Too,” in a book called Debating PC. Criticizing Benno Schmidt’s
view that speech should be tolerated because “freedom must be the paramount obligation of an academic community,” Fish says Schmidt has “no sense of the lacerating harms that speech of certain kinds can inflict.”. Fish therefore favored campus regulations banning “hate speech.” “Speech,” he says, “is never and could not be an independent value, but it is always asserted against a background of some assumed conception of the good to which it must yield in the event of conflict.”
The catch in this argument revolved around the conception of the good at its heart. The traditional view claimed speech was subordinated to the moral law, the good in question. The Whig Enlightenment claimed, in the case of speech, that
he moral law was subject to individual freedom. This rallying cry allowed Jewish revolutionaries to take over the university. Once in power, they changed the rules. The “Good” at Duke University, where Fish taught at the time he was being
proclaimed as an Apostle of Political Correctness in organs like Newsweek, got redefined as the will of those in power. In the absence of a “text” such as Nature, Being, Logos, the Constitution, etc., there could be no good but the will of the
powerful fortified by appetite.
Two years earlier, in an article in Newsweek on Political Correctness entitled “Thought Police on Campus,” Fish praised pluralism in a way that had already become dated, when he claimed that “Disagreement can be fun.”
By the 1990S there was no disagreement and little fun in class. Reader Response criticism was Talmudic.
There was “no text.” There was no Torah; there was only Talmud, i.e., opinions of literary critics who were the secular equivalent of the rabbi, always right, even when other rabbis contradicted him. Reader Response criticism, as espoused by
Fish, claimed the reader did not discover meaning, he created it out of materials assembled from a text that had no real existence until he appropriated it. This idea appealed to legions of poorly educated English majors plodding through graduate
schools in the mid-’70s.
The fledgling critic, overburdened by texts his defective education left him unprepared to understand, leapt to avoid the labor of scholarly pursuit and rejoiced to learn scholarship was nothing but unfettered appetite applied to difficult texts. “The text means what I say it means,” the dull-witted grad student chanted. “I am the hegemon of meaning,” he crowed, because, Fish told
him, the critic is not “the humble servant of texts.” The euphoria wore off when the young literary critic discovered, like the denizens of Orwell’s Animal Farm, that some literary critical pigs were more equal than others. Animal Farm was especially relevant because the same sort of transformation was taking place in literary criticism that had taken place in revolutionary France, Russia, and Germany.
The passions were aroused as the instrument of revolution against the moral order, but once the revolution destroyed the old regime, there was no moral order to protect the revolutionaries from the will of their new masters.
Reader Response Criticism led to politicly correct speech codes, but the grad students of the ’70s still haven’t figured out why or how. Stanley Fish engaged in bait and switch. Once the mal-educated, baby-boomer grad students accepted the
hegemony of the reader over texts in Fish’s campaign to bring down the ancien regime, they were informed the reader was not quite as sovereign as he had told them. Indeed, robbed of the text as the source of meaning, the “readers” had no power at all. The determiner of meaning of was not the “reader” after all, but the
“Fish,” wrote R. V. Young, “follows here the paradigm of Jean Jacques Rousseau: an initial assertion of virtually limitless freedom (reader-response criticism) turns into total constraint, with the individual reader or interpreter figured as a blind prisoner of the collective mind.” Once “liberated” from coming to grips with a text, the critic had no source for his interpretations.
He was dependent on the “interpretive community,” the lit crit equivalent of the communist party.
Where did the interpretive community get its meanings? Fish could not answer that question, just as he could not explain how this community could change its mind. All that remained was desire, the bait that started this revolution. But the
desires of the weak, disconnected from morals and a constitutive text, inevitably succumbed to the desires of the powerful. There was something “democratic” in the traditional American sense of the word, about the study of literature when the New Criticism gave everyone a chance to come up with a winning interpretation.
That possibility disappeared with the disappearance of the text.
When the deconstructor deconstructs all meanings and all texts, all that is left is the hegemony of his desires over everyone else’s.
Since there can be no appeal to an objective text with objective meaning, e.g, the Bible or the Constitution, the deconstructor has absolute hegemony over those who lack his power. That was the motivation behind the replacement of Shakespeare with Queer Theory and Deconstruction.
Those who abolished the text were like those who abolish morals in the name of “liberation.” Their ultimate goal, no matter how inchoately understood, was libido dominandi. The average grad student, like the average TV watcher went along
with the revolution because he saw in it the validation of his own desires. What he failed to see was the simultaneous eclipse of his moral freedom. That realization usually came too late, if at all. Since the abolition of text was a fundamentally
totalitarian project, it should come as no surprise that former Nazis like Paul DeMan were attracted to it.
Sexual morality had to be deconstructed in the name of political power. It must have no “meaning” because if there were no meaning, no one could objectwhen the powerful inflicted their desires on the weak. Aldous Huxley explicated
the meaning of “meaninglessness” long ago in Ends and Means.
“The philosopher,” Huxley wrote, who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics.
He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason
why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. The voluntary, as opposed to the intellectual, reasons for holding the doctrines of materialism, for example, may be predominantly erotic, as they
were in the case of Lamettrie (see his lyrical account of the pleasures of the bed in La Volupte and at the end of L’Homme Machine), or predominantly political as they were in the case of Karl Marx.
Beginning with Saul Bellow’s Mr. Sammler’s Planet in 1968, followed by Portnoy’s Complaint one year later, then by the movies of Woody Allen, Jewish themes and ideas became mainstream American culture. At around the same time that movie-goers were lining up to see Annie Hall, Jewish literary critics like Stanley Fish and Jacques Derrida were changing the rules of discourse. Interpretations Professor Fish said were the privilege of “interpretive communities,” meaning English departments at prestigious institutions like Johns Hopkins University, where he happened to teach. Before long any institution became ipso facto prestigious by the fact that it had hired Stanley Fish to teach there. First Duke and then the University of Illinois at Chicago became prestigious. At the same time Jacques Derrida at Yale was saying that the interpretation of texts was so difficult, that no one could do it. Readings were no longer possible; all that was possible were “misreadings.”
Neither of these talmudic forms of literary criticism were compatible with American democratic ideals. According to Fish, the Torah, i.e, the poem or “text” as a secular surrogate for the Bible, had been swallowed by the Talmud of arcane
literary theory, for which he was the chief rabbi. Anyone who disagreed was expelled from the synagogue…
Page 1000 and following The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its impact on world history
Dear Mr. Clizbe. If one desired to do so, one could trace all problems back to Adam and Eve but for the purposes of speech codes, it does trace back to what Jones was writing about.
A regards Willi Muenzenberg, his program and his hidden influence, during his epoch this was still a protestant county as regards the First Amendment.
“A regards Willi Muenzenberg, his program and his hidden influence, during his epoch this was still a protestant county as regards the First Amendment.”
Huh? Not really sure what a “protestant county as regards the First Amendment” actually means. Could you elucidate? Thanks.
Highly suggest you read either my book, Willing Accomplices, or the articles I’ve written about the thesis (which is clearly proven now). Again, focusing on Fish, et al, is like viewing a painting through a drinking straw and expounding on the whole thing. You’re missing the forest for the trees.
Here’s a 12 minute video:
The strategy/tactics/message of ALL Politically Correct Progressives originated with Muenzenberg’s operations. And had nothing whatsoever to do with the Talmud or Stanley Fish.
Muenzenberg’s operations targeted American (and German/UK/French) education/academia. Their goal was to insert the anti-Normal payload into higher education and K-12. In my book, I carefully dissect one such operation–the target, and Willing Accomplice, was Dr George S. Counts.
As a Columbia Teachers College professor, Counts inserted the anti-Normal America hatred into BOTH university level, AND K-12. Very carefully, and very subtly. He is revered to this day in university schools of education as the founder of the education approach called “Social Reconstruction.” Counts was the first wave of Willing Accomplices, and was directly controlled by Comintern intelligence.
The focus on the late-stage manifestations of PC-Prog payloads, as in your examples, misplaces attention from the actual source and payloads, confusing the issue.
Counts was a corn-fed Kansas WASP who was happy to betray his country for fame, fortune, adulation, and power. Nothing to do with his ethnicity.
The case studies in Willing Accomplices for the other two legs of the cultural stool: the media and Hollywood: Walter Duranty (a transplanted British scumbag), and Dorothy Parker (a despicable New Yorker who went to Catholic elementary school and WASP finishing schools).
The people wanting Roosevelt’s statue removed are the true racists. If you don’t assume anything by looking at the statue, it’s just 3 people, 1 of them on a horse. But if you look at it with racist eyes, you see skin color, you see high ground (man on a horse), and you see levels of superiority/inferiority.
Same thing’s happening over here. What America does, our media copies and probably vice versa.
It is a hall of mirrors though and will implode on itself…,the media, as it is today, I mean.
There is fertile ground for new media sources if they can only get around Google’s power of censorship and the relabelling of anything too close to truth being called hate speech by governors trying to keep a lid on the boiling pot.
The BBC over here, are shortly for the CHOP! And they know it. So they’re busy rearranging their soldiers in a way that they think might offer them a bit longer. Ic would say more….
I was pleased to see Dominic Raab refuse to take a knee.
The BBC had something of a roasting yesterday in a select committee, most of which I watched. It seems they are receiving hundreds of “letters”.
People I know all feel the same way. Not all of them are right wing or white.
The most vociferous being of mixed race; half Irish Half French Gianan and she’s more right than me. We joked about opening a Twitter account between us but not inviting anybody else except Trump.
Just block everybody and have a say.
There are plenty of people of various shades of politics who really don’t approve of what is going on in the USA or in other countries like this one where monuments of history are being vandalised. All because of hatred and ignorance.
During the riots a few years back in London, a policeman said that people don’t understand if a policeman tells you to move back, he might ask again and if you don’t move he will move you.
What world do they think they’re living in. In India you can get beaten with a stick by a policeman for a traffic violation if you don’t have a money note to offset the crime. (Perks of the job, I suppose.)
They should Send In The Dogs, but the trouble is that where there’s tear gas they have employment rights. Doggie goggles?
All the rioting and protesting is political opportunism.
A sign of desperation from the left, and then a blatant clinging to environmental matters in order to regain or retain power within media, in particular.