Chambered in ballpoint

A disdain for the rational and reserved.

A disdain for the rational and reserved.

Charlottesville was a horrific display of human conflict, and the sensationalism of extreme views. The pendulum always swings left, to right to left, to right in politics, but disparity of this scale has rarely, if ever, been seen. Everyone loves a scapegoat, but the extent to which they are being used has created a divide in the USA, and the west in general. The extreme left blame white people for everything wrong in the world, we need to accept our privilege and grovel to whichever minority is the most oppressed, according only to those spouting such rhetoric of course. On the other hand we have the return of Nazism, and I don’t think I need to explain why that ideology is awful.

The alt-right is evil, the alt-left are vicious, yet both should be allowed to speak and this is something both of those fringe groups disagree on. Neither want the other to speak, neither mind attacking the other for doing so and neither the alt -nor the alt-left can speak to one another in a civil manner. They agree on more than they seem to accept, violence, terror, property damage and the inability to cooperate or function as normal human beings. If I listed those things neutrally, would you really be able to differentiate?

The funny thing? They’re not the ones taking the most hatred. No no, jokes on the internet have arisen to make fun of Centrists not being able to tell the difference between the alt-left and alt-right, as if they have no sense of self-awareness:

Nazis: Let’s kill people

Antifa: Let’s not

Centrist: I can’t tell the difference!

Problem is, it’s nothing like that. A response to that joke that I found on tumblr was simply perfect, so I shall paraphrase and give credit here:

Leftist: I don’t know why *burns car* centrists can’t *hits man with a bike lock* tell the difference *charges a group of people with homemade weapons* between us *screams about how the white race is ruining everything* and the alt-right! –

The reason I’m bringing this up is to make it easier for me to (begrudgingly) defend Trump. The media, and a hell of a lot of people from twitter and other social media, have absolutely raided Trump with insults, hate, and then proceeded to lie about what he said to the rest of the world. The media of course, fuelled this witch hunt with yet more lies and attacks on character, instead of on his ideas, something that is becoming increasingly rare. Trump’s first statement was this: ‘We condemn this egregious display if hatred, bigotry and violence.’ That statement was obviously political, as Trump’s actual feelings on the topic were far more nuanced, in contrast to his usual character. He goes on about how great his statement, the usual ego-stroking, but what he says next, in my opinion, is truly brilliant.

I’m going to paraphrase; the transcript will be linked in full at the bottom of this article. He begins by replying to a loaded question on alt-right groups with his own question, he asks about the guilt on the part of the alt-left, as the alt-right have already been slammed around the world and back. He – rightfully – states that there were two violent groups there, not just one. The alt-left charged people with clubs and other weapons, protested without a permit, and deserve just as much of the blame for the violence and horrors experienced on that day. He also brings up the fact that whilst there were a lot of alt-right supporters at that rally, they 1. Had a permit, and 2. Some of them weren’t even alt-right, they were there to protest the taking down of the confederate statue and were caught in the middle of ideological warfare. There’s no doubt that both groups went there looking for a fight, but no one seems to be pointing that out. We’re giving those on the left a free pass, why? Because they’re not Nazis? We seem to have forgotten about the horrors experienced under communism, or the fact that Nazism originally started as a left-wing ideology, you know, the national socialist party?

People need to do more research before they blast someone. What Trump said was neither racist, nor untrue. That is the most nuanced opinion I’ve seen in all the reporting around Charlottesville, and annoyingly, it’s the most factual.

So why are the centrists getting slammed? For the same reasons atheists were never trusted at the height of religious power – you aren’t following the sheep, so you’re a danger to their irrational ideology. If you’re not fanatical about nothing, and you can be convinced with logic and reason, what good are you to the herd?

Post writing addition:

I just read over the transcript again with fresh eyes, I’m gonna rant here at the end of the article. My writings are all subjective, but this is about to be a rant, so take what you will with that:

A reporter, very condescendingly, asked Trump if he was putting White nationalists on the same moral plane as the Alt-left. Now, Trump very diplomatically said he wasn’t putting anyone on a moral plane, but I think that was very weak of him. Of course you should. What’s the difference? Seriously what is? Because both sides blame one race for all their troubles, both sides are very violent, and both sides have caused serious harm and damage to the united states.

A reporter continues: ‘You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?’

This is such obvious twisting and lying! It gets me so frustrated! The reporter can’t honestly disagree with that statement, who can? Even watching the horrific video of that Dodge ploughing through people at Charlottesville, the people he was driving into were carrying clubs, baseball bats and other weapons. There are videos of them charging at people, blocking the road and attacking protestors as they ‘rounded the corner. Some of the protestors were Neo-Nazis, yes, but they do not deserve to die for misplaced views. Convince them, don’t beat them into the ground, you only make more people disagree with your side, and more likely to become Neo-Nazis out of fear for their own way of life.

The reporter continues: ‘The neo-Nazis started this thing, they showed up in Charlottesville.’

What!? What!? So now showing up somewhere – with a permit mind you – is grounds for violence, attack, hatred and deception? Showing up somewhere with an ideology different to other’s is now an offence that must be judged, juried and executed by the layman’s? These mental gymnastics are despicable, and it’s a huge part of the reason that America is in such a mess right now.

Trump goes on to defend that third group, those protesting the removal of the statue, as the party that is getting lumped in with White Nationalists. In his defence, he brings up the idea that though the confederacy were for slave trade, that does not mean the soldiers and generals that were in that war agreed with it, nor does it mean that those men did not accomplish something great. The general that is being honoured in the statue is being honoured because of his incredible military record, winning numerous battles against the north whilst outnumbered, with worse technology and whilst simultaneously fighting slave uprisings. Objectively and incredible feat, not a moral feat, but a pragmatic one. He adds an analogy that is hard to argue against –

Trump: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. So will George Washington now lose his statue? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson, do you like him? Okay good. He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue?

The left are trying to alter history and culture because it does not fit with today’s values, but it is impossible to compare today’s moral values with yesterday’s morality. The world moves forward, things change, that does not mean we cannot honour achievements made in the past due to ill received morals.

Who’s next, Winston Churchill?

Finally, Trump finishes his statement by saying that both sides had bad people, and ‘fine’ people. Both sides were evil, hatred and violence was caused by both sides. A simple, factual, statement.

A reporter then replies: ‘I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated White Nationalists unfairly?’

I almost pulled my hair out. Notice the language used: You were. That is a declarative statement, not an interrogative nor one that employs any journalistic ethics whatsoever. It’s a trap, if Trump says yes, that’s it, the press can cut up and serve one huge lie to the public, missing all that juicy context. Trump, luckily, does not fall for the trap, he begins with ‘no.’

But the press know that Trump was saying nothing of the sort, he was saying that the people who were not White Nationalists were lumped in with the Alt-right, and he said that was unfair. Either the persons IQ is lower that his/her height, or they’re trying to twist the conversation into their narrative.

–          Rant over. Sorry about that.

Nothing’s changed, America is split between blaming white or black people for all their troubles, no one is having a dialogue, Trump is being misrepresented and the media is lying to everyone for profit. Welcome to WWIII, Einstein got it wrong, WWWIIII might be fought with sticks and stones because we wipe ourselves out, but WWIII is also fought with those same primitive weapons, because for the first time, civilians have brought it upon themselves. Not politicians and trained military.

 

 

2 thoughts on “A disdain for the rational and reserved.”

  1. >The general that is being honoured in the statue is being honoured because of his incredible military record, winning numerous battles against the north whilst outnumbered, with worse technology and whilst simultaneously fighting slave uprisings. Objectively and incredible feat, not a moral feat, but a pragmatic one.

    …These are not feats that should be honored. We honor people who do impressive things for the side of good, not for the side of evil. By your logic here, we should be honoring Hitler for the incredible feat of uniting all of Germany under his rule (which was without a doubt an incredible logistical feat).

    1. There’s more nuance to Robert E. Lee’s statue, he also openly opposed to war and had to make a decision on whether to lead the union military or the confederate military, lead the military he knew was more likely to win and had the moral high ground, or chose to lead the military in defence of his homeland. The people in the confederate war were not necessarily connected to the cause they supposedly fought for.

      As for Hitler, you have a good point. I should have worded my article better; however, you can’t judge morality of the time with today’s morality. Hitler was wrong in what he did no matter what context you look at it. If you take someone like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, why should they have statues? They were major slave owners. You can’t attach morality to a statue honouring the past because you don’t live in the same moral context. Hitler is the exception, his actions don’t have a historical context in terms of their morality, they were as wrong then as they are now. Humans change throughout the course of history, it’s not wrong to pay credence to some good and powerful actions, whilst criticising those – now – morally bankrupt actions. There are reasons for these statues to exist, they should not be ripped down due to the significance of their place in history, good or bad. A statue does not necessarily worship the person or their cause.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *