Keith Richburg’s Out Of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa, about his job as the Washington Post’s bureau chief in the 1990s, proves it. Richburg’s painful realization as he witnessed the daily horrors of life in Africa, whether from nature’s or man’s cruelty, was how lucky he was that his ancestors were enslaved:
Whenever Democrats push race to the forefront of the news, reparations pop up. The theory is that, because their forebears were kidnapped from Africa and enslaved in America, blacks will never catch up economically to whites. It doesn’t matter that there are no slaves or slave-owners today; that most whites are not descended from slave-owners; or that racism impoverished, rather than enriched the South.
Scott Adams’s brilliant insight cuts through all this: the comparison isn’t between black wealth and white wealth in America. Instead, the comparison must be the difference between blacks’ average net worth in America and blacks’ average net worth in Africa. After all, the act of stealing blacks from Africa is the “but for cause” of all wrongs done to blacks.
Adams imagines a neutral space alien calculating reparations. He informs earthlings that black versus white net worth in America isn’t the correct calculation:
“If I’m going to calculate the, let’s say, the theft from the black community, if you were to measure the theft — let’s say just theft — that this slavery was. In other words, you stole the productive part of their lives, etc., and you used it for yourself. So here’s the number I need: I need how does the average economic situation for the average black person in this country and then, to compare it, I want to compare it to the average life of a black African.”
And you say, “What?”
And the space alien says, “Yeah that’s the comparison. So, you want to compare what would happen to the average black person if they had stayed unmolested in Africa and there had never been a slave trade. Because that’s what you’re comparing to. Because if the people who were brought to America as slaves, and then their descendants, are doing much worse than if they’ve never been brought with slavery, then that’s the amount of reparations. That’s how much they lost is all the money they would have made if they just stay in Africa.
You know what the problem is, right? They would owe money to white people.
Adams is correct. Keith Richburg’s Out Of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa, about his job as the Washington Post’s bureau chief in the 1990s, proves it. Richburg’s painful realization as he witnessed the daily horrors of life in Africa, whether from nature’s or man’s cruelty, was how lucky he was that his ancestors were enslaved:
Sometime, maybe four hundred or so years ago, one of my ancestors was taken from his village, probably by a local chieftain. He was shackled in leg irons, kept in a holding pen or a dark pit, possibly at Goree Island off the coast of Senegal. And then he was put in the crowded, filthy cargo hold of a ship for the long and treacherous voyage across the Atlantic to the New World.
Many of the slaves died on that voyage. But not my ancestor. Maybe it was because he was strong, maybe just stubborn, or maybe he had an irrepressible will to live. But he survived, and ended up in forced slavery working on plantations in the Caribbean. Generations on down the line, one of his descendants was taken to South Carolina. Finally, a more recent descendant, my father, moved to Detroit to find a job in an auto plant during the Second World War.
And so it was that I came to be born in Detroit and that thirty-five years later, a black man born in white America, I was in Africa, birthplace of my ancestors, standing at the edge of a river not as an African but as an American journalist — a mere spectator — watching the bloated bodies of black Africans cascading over a waterfall. And that’s when I thought about how, if things had been different, I might have been one of them — or might have met some similarly anonymous fate in one of the countless ongoing civil wars or tribal clashes on this brutal continent. And so I thank God my ancestor survived that voyage.
Does that sound shocking? Does it sound almost like a justification for the terrible crime of slavery? Does it sound like this black man has forgotten his African roots? Of course it does, all that and more. And that is precisely why I have tried to keep this emotion buried so deep for so long, and why it pains me so now to put these words in print, for all the world to see. But I’m writing this so you will understand better what I’m trying to say.
It might have been easier for me to just keep all of these emotions bottled up inside. Maybe I should have just written a standard book on Africa that would have talked broadly about the politics, the possibilities, the prospects for change.
But I’m tired of lying. And I’m tired of all the ignorance and hypocrisy and the double standards I hear and read about Africa, much of it from people who’ve never been there, let alone spent three years walking around amid the corpses. Talk to me about Africa and my black roots and my kinship with my African brothers and I’ll throw it back in your face, and then I’ll rub your nose in the images of the rotting flesh.
Here’s more information about life in Africa. And here’s the world Black Lives Matter wants, one without functional police (warning: graphic violence):
UPDATE: It turns out that others with less prominence than Scott Adams have been thinking along the same lines. Back in 2015, Blue Collar Perspective already suggested that the comparison should always be between people’s ancestral lands and their lives in America. It strikes me as very American for lots of independent thinkers to arrive at similar out-of-the-box solutions. This is another reason to reject Big Government, statism, and other collectivism: They force everyone’s thoughts down the same funnel, preventing new ideas.
A social media post (which has been removed) by a member of the Washington National Guard has been shared more than 7000 times since it was written on June 12th. It’s a true education in mob mentality.
As Toby Cowern says, “Look how much ‘othering’ has been done already. Once that’s happening there’s a big problem.”
He’s right – and here’s the shocking truth about what’s really going on in Seattle from a person who had a front-row ticket to the mayhem.
An eye-witness account
I previously said I had a lot to say regarding my experiences while in downtown Seattle [Incoming VERY long post…]. When I came home, I was exhausted, angry, and saddened by what I had experienced. I said I needed to share what happened, but I also said I needed some time to rest and reflect. My unit was activated for 12 days. We worked long hours but we continued to stay dedicated to the state and the mission. I can’t stop that now. I’ve been up all night, trying my best to put into words what I experienced and observed. This is too important to wait. I rarely post on social media, but I’m making this post, hoping it reaches those that want to know the truth. I can imagine, given the current environment, this post may cause some controversy. That is not my intention what-so-ever. I agree the excessive use of force in Minnesota was inexcusable but reacting with hatred and violence is contradictory to the message of peace and change. Either way, people need to know what’s actually happening behind the guise of this “movement.” Whether localized or nationalized, what I witnessed NEEDS TO STOP!
Activation:
I was working nights and the day of my phone call, I had difficulties sleeping that morning. I had a lot on my mind, and I decided I was going to stay up and do some yard work. As I was preparing to go outside, I started receiving text messages and phone calls. “We’ve been activated! Hit time at the armory is 1700!” I looked at my watch and I had maybe an hour before hit time. “Well, I’m going to be late…” I thought. I immediately responded to the text messages and phone calls, telling them I would be there as soon as possible. Why was I going to be late?
My unit is in Western Washington and I live in Southeastern Washington… to drive, at a pace much faster than the speed limit, I’d be lucky to make it in three hours… Without hesitation, I grabbed all my staged military gear and threw it into the back of my vehicle. I figured, “Heck, if it’s an emergency, they’re not going to have time to put out a packing list… so, I mise well bring everything.” As I was throwing military gear into my vehicle, I received text messages telling me to pack for at least a week. “Wow, this is serious…” I thought. Being activated and expecting the mission to last a week or more, whatever the activation was for, it was going to be an uphill battle… I threw a few uniforms and a week’s worth of clothing in my rucksack and proceeded to drive to the armory.
Preparation:
I arrived at the armory in the evening and realized I had now been awake for over 24 hours. I contacted my chain of command and determined we’d leave at zero dark hundred for Seattle. I gathered my issued equipment, added it to my ruck sack, and tried to take a one-hour nap. I awoke to people on the move and bright fluorescent lights. It felt like I had just closed my eyes, but it was go-time. I grabbed my bags and met my unit in the parking lot of the armory. There was no time to waste! We loaded every cot we had, all our personal bags, and whatever we could quickly think of that we might need. We loaded our transportation and were off to Seattle in what seemed like minutes…
The Build Up:
On our way to Seattle, I had time to dwell and self-reflect. What’s so out of control that the Guard would be called up? Who and/or what am I going to be protecting? Am I going to be protecting rights, life, property, or all the above? I told myself that no matter what happens, I will do my utmost to remain impartial, to uphold the Constitution, to protect the rights of the citizens of the United States, and to protect life and property to the best of my ability. As a Soldier, we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Regardless of the political climate, a Soldier has the responsibility to remain impartial, to ensure all citizens’ rights are protected and that the Constitution is adhered to. As we approached Seattle, I did so with an open mind and a sympathetic heart. I prayed that I may understand whoever needs our help, that I may do my job to the utmost of my ability, and that the rights of all those involved would be preserved.
The Gear:
Per order of the Governor of Washington State, Jay Inslee, the Washington Army National Guard went into Seattle COMPLETELY UNARMED. We had NO way to defend ourselves and HAD TO rely upon the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT to protect us… Not all of us had vests or plates that would stop rifle bullets. In the beginning, most of us didn’t even have shin guards… A few Soldiers didn’t have batons… Shields were hit or miss, but we ended up sharing where we could…
The Riots:
Oddly enough, my first day was one of the hardest days. We touched ground and were immediately dispatched to the Seattle Police Department (SPD) East Precinct near the intersection of 11th St and Pine St (Capitol Hill). This location would become very familiar for me, due to all of the “peaceful protesters” rioting here almost every night… Only one other unit arrived the day before we did, and they were sent to Westlake Center due to it being actively vandalized and destroyed.
Before I talk about the first day, I have to admit that my squad was later sent to Westlake. While I was there, I saw remnants of fire and broken glass everywhere I went. Almost all glass areas were boarded up and the area was devoid of business. What I, and most non-locals didn’t know, is that Westlake is a shopping center. It’s blocks upon blocks of popular businesses in downtown Seattle. It’s essentially an outdoor shopping mall… Due to the fact that not a single store was open, I was curious about the extent of damage to the area the night before. While I was looking through photos on Google while on break, one of the Seattle Police Department Police Officers pointed to an area down the street and said, “The bastards torched my patrol car right there.” As she said that, the newspaper headline photo lit my smartphone screen as I could see protesters celebrating around broken business windows and a couple vehicles that were aflame. I thought to myself, “Why would someone do this?” As I read through the headlines, I came to realize the businesses were broken into, looted, and then set ablaze… all in the name of “Black Lives Matter.” I tried my best to connect the dots… but how does social injustice relate to graffiti, theft, malicious mischief, and arson? If there was a specific political statement from these crimes, even the news media didn’t interpret or understand it… it was obviously a crime of opportunity…
Returning back to my first day at East Precinct, I was assigned as one of the squad leaders. My squad, consisting of primarily Soldiers from my unit, were fairly distinct. Like everyone else in my unit, we wore a black vest that distinguished us against every other Guardsman in Seattle. I could explain why, but it’s not relevant. If you want proof of where I was, find the Soldiers with black vests in Seattle… I was one of them.
Anyways…
On the first day, we were initially on the line behind the Seattle Police Officers at the East Precinct. The Officers weren’t carrying shields like us that day. During the protests, I observed Officers shaking hands with those yelling at them. I also saw one Officer approach a male crying in the crowd. The Officer asked the male if he wanted a hug and the protester replied, “Yes!” I watched as the Officer embraced and comforted the crying protester. Seeing these things, I thought to myself “Why am I here? Seattle PD obviously has a connection with the population, what am I supposed to accomplish or prevent here?” It didn’t take long for that to change.
I took up position on our right flank, recognizing a weakness in our line. A female quickly made eye contact with me, while recording me with her cell phone, and started yelling… “HEY! ARMY! Where are you from?!” I told her I was a Soldier with the Washington Army National Guard. She asked if I lived in Washington State. I told her, “Yes, I’m a citizen of Washington State, just like you.” She then abruptly said, “Why do you guys keep killing us?” I told her, “Excuse me?! I haven’t killed anyone…” She looked at me, befuddled, and said… “You guys keep killing us! You know, your training… don’t you have some sort of limitation where you can’t kill people?! You know, where you can only shoot us if we shoot at you?” At this point, I obviously knew she was referring to our Rules of Engagement (RoE) but it was obvious she was trying to provoke me. I tried to explain to her that what she was saying wasn’t true, but she kept interrupting me. Every time I’d try to speak, she’d raise her voice and interrupt me. As she continued to escalate, I recognized she was trying to provoke an exaggerated reaction out of me. I looked at her, shrugged, and proceeded to ignore her as I scanned the crowd. She grumbled and said, “You don’t even know your own regulations?!” I looked at her, shrugged again, and continued to ignore her… As I was scanning, I saw a male protester point out and move towards an African-American Police Officer.
The protester proceeded to yell, asking why the Officer was on the “white-man’s side.” He called the Officer an “Uncle Tom,” a “pretender,” a “race traitor,” and a N-word I’d prefer not to use. Every fiber of my being wanted to lash out. How can you use racist terms and protest racism while using it in a derogatory manner towards someone else? How can you even find fault in someone that is remaining peaceful, that is protecting your rights, and is obviously concerned for the community?! I was furious as the protester continued berating the Officer… We then got replaced by another squad for relief.
During their “protest” I observed multiple people tell others to “shut up” because of their “white privilege.” I also saw two protesters almost get into a fight because one wasn’t “letting the black man speak.” Another protester, when a male had a megaphone, yelled “Listen to him! He’s black!” I was raised, under the impression, that equality means treating everyone equally… Race won’t cease to be an issue until we stop talking about it. All my brothers and sisters are one color: green. It’s cool to honor your heritage, but no one gets special anything due to their skin tone… Everyone is treated the same and everything is equal. How is this (equality) a hard concept?
I talked to my Soldiers during our downtime. I had a few African-American Soldiers in my squad. I pointed out and talked to them about what I had just observed. I told them they may be focused upon, that the racists in the crowd might single them out because they’re African-American. It wasn’t long before we returned to the protest line…
From the beginning of the lockdown and universal quarantine, I kept wondering about why they took away sports. Bread and circuses keep the masses calm and compliant. They kept the bread flowing, with $1200 checks, but shut off all the circuses. Why?
Jonathan Pageau answered the question, and the answer only makes sense if you knew you wanted riots all along. Sports, like religion, is a place of identity and communion. But it is something more. Sports offers a place to fuel our aggressive tendencies and to give an outlet to channel our aggression. We cheer and root and argue about our team.
The gladiators served the same purpose. It sublimates our aggression; it’s a communal catharsis of violence. When you take it away, you end up with what you’ve got now: pseudo-religious actions where people are using all religious tropes of scapegoating, catharsis, violence, contrition.
The only place where it is permitted is in the protests. You can’t go to church, you can’t go to a restaurant, you can’t go to sports, but you can go to these protests. It is the only outlet, and without sports it is the only outlet for aggression.
Over my life, I have supposedly gone from “liberal” to” libertarian” to “conservative” to “deplorable” to “conspiracy theorist” to “racist”. Yet my worldview had never changed.
As a young high school then college student in the 1960’s, I was told I was a “liberal”. (OK, a classical liberal.) I was for a color-blind society, valuing individuals by merit, from my own experience. I was for freedom of association, freedom to choose, and personal responsibiity. Sound and stable money, charity by choice from personal passion, upward mobility and equal rights under the law were my ideals. I was opposed to a military draft and foreign wars for the benefit of connected corporations and client governments. Peace & Love.
I questioned authority.
As a young entrepreneur in the 1970s & 80s, I was told that I was not a liberal anymore. I was a “libertarian”, accused of not having a heart for the “disadvantaged”. Working hard while taking care of my own and those known was not enough shown. Advocating the lowering or termination of taxes in favor of user fees, volitional financing and competitive privatization threatened the “liberal” agendas, those of the political class who wanted me to pay for intervention programs to enact their social ideals. I still believed in owning one’s own body and what you put in it, as well as the right to be wise or unwise, and live with and learn from the consequences. Leave us alone, and a market would arise for most anything.
I questioned the use of force.
As a long hours family man & businessman in the 1980s & 90s, I was told I must be a “conservative” because I did not subscribe to special quotas for politically fashionable “minorities” nor taxation and redistribution through social engineering agencies and organizations working against my own values and sovereignty. I still believed in live and let live. But for the social critics, that was not enough. Worse, I was a “gold bug” – saving, rather than borrowing to make the economy more prosperous (for banks and cooperating corporations), nor donating to make the connected more powerful. I practiced defense, not tribute.
I questioned the political class.
As an innocent bystander to the media propaganda wars of the 2000s, the corruption of information, education, public administration and the business world left me reluctant to participate. Apparently my silence or refusal to join the cultural Marxist social engineers and their globalist corporate puppeteers in expressing postured outrage at selected “misdeeds” was my disgrace. I was now a “deplorable”. For being knowledgeably skeptical as to political agendas, soundbites & stunts, identity politics, government decrees, false science, scamdemics, planned chaos and misleading or fake “news”, I was labeled a “conspiracy theorist”. It is how the enlightened are discredited. It is how any spotlight on or resistance to the deep state is deplatformed.
I questioned the official narratives.
As a witness to the social chaos of June 2020, I am told that I am part of the problem. My failure to offer vocal and financial support to the racial racketeers, my failure to “confess” and ask for “forgiveness” for things I have not done nor condone, for attitudes that are not of my own mind nor application, are somehow acts of “enabling”. For not “excusing” the rioters and looters, for pointing out the real statistics of crime and policing, for observation that the problems with law enforcement are less racial, but more structural, I must be a “white supremist racist”. (Actually that puts me in the good company of accomplished black Americans as Thomas Sowell, Candace Owens, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, Herman Cain, Ben Carson and Allen West).
I questioned the new normal.
Funny thing. Over my life, I have supposedly gone from “liberal” to” libertarian” to “conservative” to “deplorable” to “conspiracy theorist” to “racist”. Yet my worldview had never changed.
Protestors in Seattle have taken over whole city blocks in a neighborhood known as Capitol Hill, just a bit north of downtown. They occupy city streets and parks, as well as (apparently) a police precinct building. This enclave, dubbed the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” or CHAZ, is now making headlines around the world. Its newly assembled residents have declared CHAZ an independent nation apart from both Seattle and America, and thus exempt from laws and local police jurisdiction. They have set up fences and checkpoints around the area (so much for open borders), and already urban legends are proliferating about warlords taking over, extortion and shakedowns replacing taxes, and new forms of quasi-private security taking hold. Nobody knows how long the situation will persist, but recall how 2011’s Occupy Wall Street demonstrations lasted many months.
Of course Capitol Hill, like all urban neighborhoods, is a mix of “public” and private property. Ingress and egress for residents and businesses take place via public streets, which are severely impaired at the moment. Property values, the viability of retail stores, and the general quietude and livability of this gentrified neighborhood are very much in flux. Anyone who owns a condo, shop, or restaurant in the area has a right to be angry and an argument for monetary compensation from both the protestors themselves and the city government that has so badly failed them.
Good luck with that in a Seattle courtroom.
But what about the purely “public” (i.e., government owned) land and buildings around Capitol Hill? To the extent that the occupied buildings and streets “belong” to the city of Seattle, are the protestors legitimately occupying them? Can anyone, Seattleite or not, make a valid claim to such property? Are they illegal squatters or legitimate homesteaders?
It seems like an absurd question on its face, and it is: surely the forceful takeover of a long-established area cannot be legitimate, even if a few government-owned roads and buildings muck up the principles involved. But no less than Professor Walter Block likens government-owned property to virgin territory, albeit stolen, available to any claimant for homesteading. In Block’s conception, anything owned by the city of Seattle—libraries, buildings, equipment, roads, you name it—is as wide open to anyone as a virgin tract of land in deepest Alaska never touched by humans.
I do not at all claim that property such as government roads or libraries is “unowned.” Rather, I claim these holdings were stolen. I agree that the state now possesses them; I argue, only, that this is unjustified. And, yes, I insist, the same libertarian analysis can be applied, in this context, to virgin and stolen land. Why? This is because for the libertarian, at least as I construe him, stolen land is de jure virgin land, ready for the next homesteader to seize it (on the assumption that the rightful original owner cannot be located, or he acquiesces in the state’s seizure, or that, arguendo, we can ignore this rightful owner.)
Seattle’s mayor Jenny Durkan may not go quite as far as Dr. Block, but she does appear to acknowledge the new, uh, “community” essentially colonizing major thoroughfares in the Emerald City. She may not be ready to grant the CHAZ outright ownership of the streets in question, but neither is she setting any deadlines for eviction:
Clearly the mayor is in the midst of a dangerous situation, both literally for the people in the CHAZ and in terms of her own political career. It’s a public relations nightmare. And from a purely legal perspective, what grants her authority over who occupies Capitol Hill?
One answer is taxes, says Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe. In his view, the streets of Seattle are not virgin territory available to homesteaders, but rather akin to land held in trust by (admittedly unworthy) state agents on behalf of taxpayers. If those trustees won’t sell the land or other property outright and return the funds to taxpayers, Hoppe’s view is that they at least ought to operate and maintain such property on their behalf. So, for the purpose of countering Dr. Block’s contention that government property should be viewed as open to homesteading—and only for that purpose, Hoppe says—”public” property should be viewed as being owned by taxpayers. As such, it should be managed on behalf of the long-suffering (net) taxpaying citizens as a matter of simple justice.
Principles aside, the essence of ownership is control. Bureaucrats, police, and politicians who control access to and use of “public” property are its de facto owners, because only they can sell, encumber, or control its use. The average American’s ownership claim to the local playground or a city library is virtually nil. Simply try sleeping in them overnight, and you’ll quickly find out who really owns them. So, for the moment, the Seattle protestors have the greatest control over Capitol Hill and hence an ownership claim of sorts under the brute force of “possession is nine-tenths of the law.”
Whether their claim is valid comes down to whether they are illegal squatters or righteous Lockean homesteaders. In a densely settled area like Seattle, with a long history of property titles flowing from valid sales, the question becomes absurd. Their protests and encampments directly affect the undisputed private property all around them. The Seattle government has thoroughly controlled the roads and police using funds forcibly taxed from Seattle residents. Capitol Hill residents, businesses, and visitors rely and depend on existing understandings and contractual arrangements. Seattle cannot be homesteaded, not even city property, in any conceivable manner that does justice to its current inhabitants. And to the extent that they’ve paid for it all through taxes, their right to evict the CHAZ protestors clearly supercedes any “right” to conflate occupation with protest.
It’s tempting to dismiss the Seattle protestors en masse because of their terrible and violent political beliefs, and their terrible designs for remaking America without property or markets. But that doesn’t change the thorny question of how to deal with them here and now. If they are illegal squatters—not to mention disruptors of many who live or work in the area—then their forcible removal is justified. But New York City lacked the political will to remove Occupy Wall Street campers from Zuccotti Park for many months. Will ultrawoke Seattle in 2020, with its obliging mayor, evict the CHAZ protestors anytime soon?
Most notable, are the ubiquitous palettes of bricks that mysteriously appear in the background to many videos of the protests (see here for a typical selection). Who is positioning them? Who is paying? U.S. commentator, Michael Snyder, too has noted the “complex network of bicycle scouts to move ahead of demonstrators in different directions of where police were, and where police were not, for purposes of being able to direct groups from the larger group to… where they thought officers would not be.”
However, in the U.S., commentators say they see no leadership; the protests are amorphous.
In a sense, President Trump finds himself between a rock and a hard place. If the protests are not quelled, and “the right normal (not) restored” (as per Esper’s words), Trump may lose those remaining ‘law and order’ conservatives. But, were he to lose control and over-react using the military, then it may be Trump who has his own ‘Tiananmen Square’ – one, which Jimmy Lai (gleefully) predicted in Hong Kong’s case would bring in the whole world against China: “Hong Kong will be done, and … China will be done, too.”
Or, in this instance, Trump might be done, and… the U.S. too.
A hot humid day, but a gentle, warm breeze is blowing. The smoke and tear gas swirl gently to and fro, hanging in the dense, sweaty air, as shafts of dazzling sunlight scythe through the smokiness at sharp angles. A mass protest is forming. Youths are chattering; people moving aimlessly. It still has not solidified into purpose, yet the raw tenseness of the coming conflict hangs, as palpably as does the smoke in the air. It is evident – there will be violence today.
No, this is not America. This is the flashpoint crossroad between the radical Jewish settler outpost of Beit El in the West Bank, and its interface with the Palestinian town of Ramallah. Between the two, the Israeli army are ranged, awaiting the hostilities to commence. This was back, during the Second Palestinian Intifada; it was a time of near war, and I was present, charged with observing this, and other unfolding confrontations, on behalf of the EU.
As usual, I head to the back of the sprawling mob, for it is only from this perspective that one can understand the nature of events. You observe the silent organization in action. Young men smoothly and unobtrusively, position the piles of stones that later would be hurled (mostly ineffectually) at the soldiers who are stood just beyond the range of stone-throwers. Then the protest managers are gone – vanished.
I know what is about to unfold. I have just seen two snipers (in this instance, Palestinians), slip into position, well-back, concealed on a hillside over-looking the crossroads. It is a sad sight – the young people massing before me are not dangerous; they generally are decent, sincere young people, angry at the expanding settler-occupation, and hyped by the ‘animators’ sent amongst the crowd to stoke emotions. They are not bad young people.
I am sad, because some, I know, will soon be dead, their families mourning a child’s loss tonight. But they are the fodder – innocent fodder – and this is war. At the height of confrontation, the snipers begin. Just a couple of rounds, but enough; they fire with silenced weapons. The Israelis soldiers cannot tell (unlike me), the source of the firing. A number of Palestinian youth fall dead; the mood incandescent. Purpose achieved.
Why do I write about these twenty-year old events? Because I know well the patterns. I have seen them often. It is a playbook widely used. And I see familiar tell-tales emerging in the videos posted on the current protests in America.
Most notable, are the ubiquitous palettes of bricks that mysteriously appear in the background to many videos of the protests (see here for a typical selection). Who is positioning them? Who is paying? U.S. commentator, Michael Snyder, too has noted the “complex network of bicycle scouts to move ahead of demonstrators in different directions of where police were, and where police were not, for purposes of being able to direct groups from the larger group to… where they thought officers would not be.”
He observes too, the anticipatory raising of bail money; the preparing of medical teams, ready to treat injuries; and of caches of flammable materials (suitable for torching official vehicles), pre-positioned in places where protests would later occur. All this – with simultaneous protests in more than 380 U.S. cities – in my experience, signals much bigger, silent backstage organization. And behind ‘the organisation’, the instigators lie, far back: maybe even thousands of miles back; and somewhere out there will be the financier.
However, in the U.S., commentators say they see no leadership; the protests are amorphous. That is not unusual to see no leadership – a ‘leadership’ appears only if negotiations are sought and planned; otherwise key actors are to be protected from arrest. The most telling sign of a backstage organisation is that on one day, it is ‘full on’, and the next all is quiet – as if a switch has been pulled. It often has.
Of course, the overwhelming majority of protestors in the U.S. this last week, were – and are – decent sincere Americans, outraged at George Floyd’s killing and continuing social and institutional racism. Was this then, an Antifa and anarchist operation, as the White House contends? I doubt it – any more than those Palestinian youth in Beit El constituted anything other than fodder for the front of stage. We simply don’t know the backstage. Keep an open mind.
Tom Luongo presciently suggests that should we wish to understand better the context to these recent events – and not be stuck at stage appearances – we need to look to Hong Kong for indicators.
Writing in October 2019, Luongo noted that: “What started as peaceful protests against an extradition law and worry over reunification with China has morphed into an ugly and vicious assault on the city’s economic future. [This is] being perpetrated by the so-called “Block Bloc”, roving bands of mask-wearing, police-tactic defying vandals attacking randomly around the city to disrupt people going to work”.
An exasperated local man exclaims: “Not only you [i.e. Block Bloc protestors are] harming the people making their living in businesses, companies, shopping malls. You’re destroying subway stations. You’re destroying our streets. You’re destroying our hard-earned reputation as a safe, international business centre. You’re destroying our economy”. The man cannot explain why there was not a single police officer in sight, for hours, as the rampage continued.
What is going on? Luongo quotes a September Bloomberg interview with HK tycoon, Jimmy Lai, billionaire publisher of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scourge, the Apple Daily, and the highly visible interlocutor of official Washington notables, such as Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. In it, Lai pronounced himself convinced that if protests in HK turned violent, China would have no choice but to send the People’s Armed Police units from Shenzen into Hong Kong to put down unrest: “That,” Lai said on Bloomberg TV, “will be a repeat of the Tiananmen Square massacre; and that will bring in the whole world against China … Hong Kong will be done, and … China will be done, too”.
In brief, Lai proposes to ‘burn’ Hong Kong – to ‘save’ Hong Kong. That is, ‘burn it to save it’ from the CCP – to keep its residue in the ‘Anglo-sphere’.
“Jimmy Lai”, Luongo writes, “is telling you what the strategy is here. The goal is to thoroughly undermine China’s standing on the world stage and raise that of the U.S. This is economic warfare, it’s a hybrid war tactic. And the soldiers are radicalized kids in uniforms bonking old men on the heads with sticks and taunting cops. Sound familiar? Because that’s what’s going on in places like Portland, Oregon with Antifa … And that cause is chaos”. (Recall, Luongo wrote this more than six months ago).
Well, here we are today: Steve Bannon, closely allied with what he, himself, terms the U.S.’ China super-hawks, and allied with yet another Chinese billionaire financier, Guo Wengui (a fugitive from the Chinese Authorities, and member at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club), is pursuing an incandescent campaign of denigration and vitriol against the Chinese Communist Party – intended, like Lai’s campaign, to destroy utterly China’s global standing.
Here it is again – the tightly-knit band of U.S. and exile super-hawks want to ‘burn’ down the CCP, to ‘save’ what? To save the ‘Empire Waning’ (America), through ‘burning’ the ‘Empire Rising’ (China). Bannon (at least, and to his credit), is explicit about the risk: A failure to prevail in this this info-war mounted against the CCP, he says, will end in “kinetic war”.
Via The New York Times
So, back to the U.S. protests, and drawing on Luongo’s insights from Hong Kong – I wrote last week that Trump sees himself fighting a hidden global ‘war’ to retain America’s present dominance over global money (the dollar) – now America’s principal source of external power. For America to lose this struggle to a putative multi-lateral cosmopolitan governance – Trump perceives – would result in the whole, white Anglo-sphere’s ejection from control over the global financial system – and its associated political privilege. It would entail control of the global financial and political system slipping away to an amorphous multi-lateral financial governance, operated by an international institution, or some global Central Bank. Since before WW1, control of global financial governance has been in the hands of the Anglo-American nexus running between London and New York. It still does, just about – albeit that today’s Wall Street elite is cosmopolitan, rather than Anglo, yet still it is firmly anchored to Washington, via the Fed and the U.S. Treasury. For this to slip would be the ‘end of Empire’.
To maintain the status of the dollar, Trump therefore has assiduously devoted himself to disrupting the multi-lateral global order, sensing this danger to the unique privileges conveyed by control of the world’s monetary base. His particular concern would be to see a Europe that was umbilically-linked to the financial and technological heavy-weight that is China. This, in itself, effectively would presage a different world financial governance.
But, is the fear that the threat principally lies with Europe’s Soros-style vision justified? There may – just as well – be a fifth-column at home. The billionaires’ club of the very rich has long ceased to be culturally ‘Anglo’. It has become a borderless, ‘self-selecting’, governing entity unto itself.
Perhaps an earlier ‘end of Époque’ metamorphosis shows us how readily an old-established elite can swap horses in order to survive. In the historical Sicilian novel, The Leopard, Prince Salina’s nephew tells his uncle that the old order is ‘done’, and with it, the family is ‘done’ too, unless … “Unless we ourselves take a hand now, they’ll foist a republic on us. If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change”.
It is clear that some billionaire oligarchs – whether American or not – can see the ‘writing on the wall’: A financial crisis is coming. And so, too, is a social one. A recent survey done by one such member, showed that 55% of American millennials supported the end to the capitalist system. Perhaps the brotherhood of billionaires is thinking that ‘unless we ourselves take a hand now, they’ll foist socialism on us’. If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change. The recent disorder in the U.S. will have unnerved them further.
The push towards radical change – towards that global financial, political and ecological governance that threatens dollar hegemony – paradoxically may emerge from within: from within America’s own financial elite. ‘Burning’ the dollar’s privileged global status may become seen as the price for things to stay as they are — and for the elite to be saved. The future of Empire hangs on this issue: Can US dollar hegemony be preserved, or might the financial ‘nobility’ see that things must change – if they are to stay as they are? That is, the Revolution may come from within — and not necessarily from abroad.
In recent days, Trump has pivoted to being the President of ‘Law and Order’ – a shift which he explicitly connected to 1968, when, in response to protests in Minneapolis after the police suffocation last week of George Floyd, Trump tweeted: “When the looting begins, the shooting starts”. These were the words used by Governor George Wallace, the segregationist third-party candidate, in the 1968 Presidential election: Republicans launched their “southern strategy” to win over resentful white Democrats after the civil rights revolution.
Trump is determined to prevail – but today is not 1968. Can a Law and Order platform work now? U.S. demography in the south has shifted, and it is not clear that the liberal, urban electorates of America would sign up to a law-and-order platform, which implicitly appeals to white anxieties?
In a sense, President Trump finds himself between a rock and a hard place. If the protests are not quelled, and “the right normal (not) restored” (as per Esper’s words), Trump may lose those remaining ‘law and order’ conservatives. But, were he to lose control and over-react using the military, then it may be Trump who has his own ‘Tiananmen Square’ – one, which Jimmy Lai (gleefully) predicted in Hong Kong’s case would bring in the whole world against China: “Hong Kong will be done, and … China will be done, too.”
Or, in this instance, Trump might be done, and… the U.S. too.
In PA, where food and drink establishments have been shut down for months, these establishments have to shell out thousands for outdoor facilities in order to expand beyond take-out.
If they are still in business.
Erie county is rapidly going to hell in a hand basket.
The mahi-mahi taco platter at El Segundo Sol in Fashion Show mall is $19.95. A Coke to wash it down (refills included) is $3.75 more. When the check arrives, it reflects the food and drink charges of $23.70, along with $2.06 in tax and a 95-cent “surcharge,” bringing the total to $26.71, the Las Vegas Review-Journalreports.
While the server doesn’t mention the fee when he drops the bill at the table, a notation at the bottom of the check makes it clear.
“To help offset restrictions on our business resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, a 4% surcharge has been added to all guest checks,” it explains. “If you would like this removed, please let us know.”
A statement, according to the Review-Journal, from R.J. Melman, president of El Segundo Sol’s Chicago-based parent company, Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, calls the optional surcharge “a necessary step during a time when unanticipated costs have jeopardized the survival of our business.”
It explains: “Our industry has been dramatically impacted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic forced closures. In addition to the extreme restrictions that have been placed on our dining rooms, we are also facing additional costs of doing business — added expenses for carryout and delivery, providing PPE to employees, executing enhanced sanitation practices, and absorbing the greatest increase in food pricing since 1974.”
In addition to El Segundo Sol, Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises has implemented the new policy at Joe’s Seafood, Prime Steak and Stone Crab in the Forum Shops and Mon Ami Gabi at Paris Las Vegas. The company’s fourth local eatery, the Eiffel Tower Restaurant, remains temporarily closed.
This is a report out of Vegas but there are indications that the practice is more widespread across the country by certain chains.
Here’s what I think Klein’s real mistake was. He didn’t fawn over the student for caring so deeply that he wanted faculty to lower standards for black students.
Instead, Klein saw a totally stupid idea, and he let the student have it. He didn’t sugarcoat his response. He didn’t apologize for not agreeing. A white professor, he did not exhibit self-loathing.
The dean’s message to faculty was clear: The students know more than the faculty. Professors are there to learn from social justice activists. And they should never talk back. Academic freedom is over.
In the war for social justice, academic freedom is an early casualty.
Consider the plight of UCLA Accounting Professor Gordon Klein.
A student sent Klein an email, screenshots of which were reviewed by Inside Higher Ed, that asked for “no-harm” grading for the final exam. (That term means counting a grade only if it improves a student’s overall course grade.) The student also asked for shorter exams and extended deadlines for black students who attended protests after the death of George Floyd.
As FIRE’s Katlyn Patton wrote in a letter to the university, “Surely, UCLA does not intend to send the message that its faculty members must grant or deny privileges or obligations based on race.”
Inside Higher Ed described the email as “a request from students who identified themselves as nonblack allies of their black peers.”
Klein wrote back that he “gives black students special treatment” and then asked for the names of black classmates; he had been conducting class online and wasn’t sure about students’ ethnicity.
Klein also wondered if some white students, say those from Minneapolis, might be traumatized and in need of an edge as well. And what of students of mixed race? He questioned how he could give a “no-harm” test when the final exam is the only exam of the semester. And he wondered how Martin Luther King Jr. might have reacted to the suggestion that students be evaluated based on the “color of their skin.”
A complaint was lodged. On June 3, UCLA suspended Klein until June 24 to give administrators time to consider the complaint. Anderson School of Management Dean Antonio Bernardo wrote that it appeared Klein had “disregard for our core principles, including an abuse of power.”
The group FIRE, or Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has advocated for Klein on the grounds that UCLA has infringed on Klein’s academic freedom.
The decision doesn’t make sense. As FIRE’s Katlyn Patton wrote in a letter to the university, “Surely, UCLA does not intend to send the message that its faculty members must grant or deny privileges or obligations based on race.”
Or maybe administrators do believe there should be different standards for different ethnic groups. Maybe they also believe that protest is so important it’s OK if students don’t learn course work.
Here’s what I think Klein’s real mistake was. He didn’t fawn over the student for caring so deeply that he wanted faculty to lower standards for black students.
Instead, Klein saw a totally stupid idea, and he let the student have it. He didn’t sugarcoat his response. He didn’t apologize for not agreeing. A white professor, he did not exhibit self-loathing.
The change.org petition, signed by more than 20,000 nags, to have Klein fired, argued that Klein should get canned for “his extremely insensitive, dismissive, and woefully racist response to his student’s request for empathy and compassion during a time of civil unrest.”
Nor did Klein subscribe to the apparent belief that protest is more important than learning. He actually expects students to learn the subject matter.
And maybe he thinks that students should be able to do two things at once — march and study — which is clear to those of us who worked our way through school.
It’s interesting that the fire-Klein petition complains about Klein’s tone with no apparent understanding of how their voices sound. Entitled. Privileged. Race-conscious. Oblivious to how they are perceived by others. Expecting praise for their every action.
UCLA actually apologized to all who were “offended” as UCLA brass were by Klein’s email, which he had not written for public consumption.
How does UCLA talk itself out of this tiny box? The dean’s message to faculty was clear: The students know more than the faculty. Professors are there to learn from social justice activists. And they should never talk back. Academic freedom is over.
Let’s see the college boys and sexy upper-class white girls in their shorts demonstrate against the Crips and the Bloods. Let’s see the absolute idiot commentators on the news shows lambaste the gang-bangers. Of course they don’t because they’re chickens–t. They only march against people they know won’t harm them.
Now for a few words about the criminal looters, arsonists, and murderers — and the good people — of today:
1. Yes, of course black lives matter. But 99.9 percent of the blacks killed violently in this country are killed by other blacks. Very few are killed by the police. Let’s see the college boys and sexy upper-class white girls in their shorts demonstrate against the Crips and the Bloods. Let’s see the absolute idiot commentators on the news shows lambaste the gang-bangers. Of course they don’t because they’re chickens–t. They only march against people they know won’t harm them.
2. If black lives matter, let’s shut down the abortion mills, where the great plurality of human beings killed are black babies. Of course no one does that, because the abortionists and the Democrat party and the judges are all in bed with each other. No one hates black life more than the Democrat leadership, in my humble opinion, if we are to judge honestly by the numbers. Why isn’t anyone protesting against them and their abortuary pals?
3. Isn’t it interesting that the first stores the looters went after were super-high-end clothing and jewelry stores, shops far too expensive for me or my wife to go to, except for presents for close friends? Aren’t the looters supposed to be with the working class? Why didn’t they loot JCPenney or stores that sold work boots? Of course they want to look rich. They aspire to do that by stealing.
4. Have you noticed that the overwhelming mass of the looters shown on TV are black? The overwhelming mass of the protesters against “racial injustice” are white prosperous-looking young people. Who is missing? Asians. They don’t loot. They don’t riot. They study and they work. And they get ahead, and they live in nice houses and buy at the stores the looters steal from. Why is that? Could there be some Asian mystery gene that does that? If so, when the Asians take over here, as my late pal Bob Bartley told me, they will not show the kindness to looters and killers of other races that we guilty, stupid whites do. They will crack down like Lee Kuan Yew and like the South Koreans.
5. My favorite TV commentator is Tucker Carlson. He’s a genius. But even he got it wrong recently when he, a brilliant man, talked about “the system” trying to hoodwink the people by stirring up race hatred. That way, said Tucker, “the people” won’t notice how much the bosses are stealing from them. He’s partly right. The top bosses of public companies are wildly overpaid by us pitiful small stockholders. But that’s a tiny sum in the context of this economy. And who is stirring up race hatred? Not the bosses. The media commentators, Tucker. I have never seen or heard of a CEO stirring up race hatred. It’s the media that’s in the race hatred derby.
6. There is nothing systemically wrong with the USA. Not racial injustice. That was gone long ago. Not class warfare. That’s ancient history. This is a super great country. It’s good to anyone who is willing to acquire human capital in the form of education as lawyer, doctor, plumber, or electrician. If there is a problem, it’s the looters, murderers, and arsonists, and their pals in the media.
This is a great, great country, and if the media tells you different, they are lying. And the cops, 99 percent of them, are great people. Let’s thank them — not kick them for protecting us.
The fact that colleges and universities couldn’t care less about the people who pay the bills was reinforced all the more this year, when most universities shut down as a result of the COVID-19 panic. Most higher education institutions insisted on charging students full price even though “college” was reduced to a series of Zoom meetings and online assignments. Obviously that’s not what most students paid for. College administrators, of course, were adamant that the students keep paying through the nose for services not rendered.
Thanks to the COVID-19 panic this year, graduates at America’s institutions of higher education missed the “opportunity” to be lectured by some celebrity or politician about the importance of wanting a better world, or how racism is bad, or about how one should celebrate life.
Indeed, those who have no friends and nothing else to do could tune in to watch commencement speeches on these topics from academic and intellectual giants like Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, and Lady Gaga.
The speeches made by politicians—who use them to push their own political agendas—are slightly more substantive, although no less opportunistic. Last year, for example—when graduation ceremonies were still conducted live—Angela Merkel and Christine Lagarde used their commencement speeches at American universities to burnish their own careers, albeit their talks were punctuated with discussions of topics like the transatlantic partnership.
The speeches tend to be expensive affairs, as well. As the Chicago Tribune reported in 2016:
the University of Houston paid $35,000 to book retired astronaut Scott Kelly as the commencement speaker. Rutgers University paid $35,000 for journalist Bill Moyers, who spoke at one division’s ceremony after the schoolwide keynote speech from the unpaid President Barack Obama. Kean University in New Jersey paid $40,000 to each of its two speakers….
As many colleges struggle with tight budgets, some have drawn sharp criticism for paying hefty speaking fees. The University of Houston, which increased tuition this year, paid $166,000 to bring Matthew McConaughey to speak last spring, including $9,500 for his airfare. The University of Oklahoma paid $110,000 to book journalist Katie Couric in 2006. Both speakers donated their fees to charity, but their costs sparked a debate about whether colleges pay too much for pageantry.
The students, of course, are never consulted as to whether this is money well spent.
From the administration’s standpoint, the fact that these speeches serve no educational purpose whatsoever is immaterial. As I wrote back in 2014:
[T]he commencement speech is one of the more absurd traditions still maintained by higher education institutions today, and it has very little to do with providing an educational experience. Graduation ceremonies overall mostly exist to stroke the egos of the faculty members and give the institution itself a pat on the back while simultaneously attempting to convert the new alumni into donors. The speeches, we are told, are some sort of once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to hear wisdom form the lips of politicians and perennial government employees like Condoleeza Rice and Christine Lagarde, who are in turn paid handsomely to lecture new graduates about “giving back” to the community, or being yourself, or following your dreams.
As with most everything that occurs at a university, the purpose of the commencement speech is not to provide a service to the students, but to make the institution’s faculty and staff feel important. If an institution can land a celebrity speaker (no matter how blood-soaked or morally bankrupt) to deliver the commencement speech, it will be great for the next fundraising campaign, and if the speaker says something really entertaining, insightful, or controversial, then it might even get the institution on the evening news. The commencement speech serves a public relations function, not an educational one.
This year’s commencement season brought with it the usual controversy, and several commencement speakers withdrew after some students protested. Among those who withdrew were Condoleeza Rice and Christine Lagarde. It turned out that some students failed to see how these politicians would dispense timeless life-lessons to the students, given their rather questionable careers spent in a variety of morally questionable pursuits.
Nonetheless, many students, pundits, and gullible parents still seem to be under the impression that graduate ceremonies are an important social institution. This is why we are told to be outraged every time there is some sort of “walkout” or other sign of disrespect directed at these well-paid and very powerful commencement speakers on occasion: “Why, these spoiled brats aren’t showing the proper respect to the rituals of our colleges and universities! These commencement speakers are all so very important and must be heeded!”
And so on.
It should be noted that most students who attend commencement ceremonies couldn’t care less who the celebrity speaker is. Most of them are there because they like the ritualistic aspects of it, and virtually no one remembers what is said at commencement speeches, in any case. If there is a vocal minority that manages to veto some speakers it is immaterial to the experience of nearly all students who will attend. Most students are really just waiting to get their prop diplomas (the real ones are mailed later) and go to brunch with their families.
Most students (i.e., paying customers) just want to “feel graduated” by going to these ceremonies, and that should be a tip to the faculty that speakers should be noncontroversial. But because these administrators want attention and influence, they often insist on bringing in controversial political figures and causing even more grief for their customers, as if four years of overpriced classes and social conditioning weren’t enough.
The fact that colleges and universities couldn’t care less about the people who pay the bills was reinforced all the more this year, when most universities shut down as a result of the COVID-19 panic. Most higher education institutions insisted on charging students full price even though “college” was reduced to a series of Zoom meetings and online assignments. Obviously that’s not what most students paid for. College administrators, of course, were adamant that the students keep paying through the nose for services not rendered.
Needless to say, students should not expect a discount for the fact that there were no commencement ceremonies this year. But the fact that we survived a year without them should serve as a reminder that we can easily get rid of the “tradition” of commencement speakers altogether. As Casey Cep explained in Politico in 2014, these speeches are “a tired ritual” and are usually on the intellectual level of something we might call “Chicken Soup for the Graduating Soul.” That’s a generous assessment. More often, these speeches exist to push the ruling class’s party line. There no intellectual enrichment going on.
Fortunately, some of the more intelligent university trustees have already done away with it altogether. Cep notes:
As Jason Song of The Los Angeles Times noticed, current Washington and Lee President Kenneth Ruscio explained in 2009: “The wise and fiscally prudent Board determined that in future years our graduates and families should rest easy knowing that if they had to endure a worthless Commencement address, it would at least be inexpensive,” meaning the president gives the only speech.
That is indeed wisdom in this era of bloated higher ed budgets, when millions are spent every year for grand, pompous ceremonies despite the discontentment of students and the fiscal crisis of higher education.
, about his job as the Washington Post’s bureau chief in the 1990s, proves it. Richburg’s painful realization as he witnessed the daily horrors of life in Africa, whether from nature’s or man’s cruelty, was how lucky he was that his ancestors were enslaved:
