Probably worth posting here so people actually read it:
---------------------
The larger issue here is that if it is possible to have a society held together by shared principles and ideas, then why is that notion on trial? Why was the principle of self-defense open to debate in the Rittenhouse case? Why is the principle of free expression on trial in Charlottesville, Va.? Why is the tradition of community defense up for debate in the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial?
The answer is that a significant number of people reject the principles necessary to have a rule-based society.
Here is the ACLU making that clear in the wake of the Rittenhouse verdict. They used to oppose the “crossing state lines” trick to involve the Feds, but those rules no longer matter. They just want blood. The mass media sees the verdict as a reason to unleash even more racial
vengeance.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but here is a statement from the
National Basketball Association condemning the verdict. Two things to note: Sports teams are owned by billionaire oligarchs, the people who run the country. Second, the statement is a direct contradiction of observable reality. Calling self-defense in the midst of a riot “vigilantism” and the riot a “peaceful protest” is deranged. They are either lying or crazy.
What the Rittenhouse case should do for the civic nationalists, especially the reaction to it from the halls of power, is cause them to wonder if their opponents are fit for a civil society at all. In other words, their concept of a civil society must exclude people who are mentally unfit for a rule-based society. Put another way, victory in the Cold Civil War can only come when the enemy is physically removed.
The libertarian political theorist Hans-Hermann Hoppe made this point with regards to his proposed libertarian society. In a rule-based society organized around the protection of private property, “There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.”
What these trials of civic nationalism are revealing is that for a rule-based society to function, it must maintain an absolute intolerance of those who question it. The intolerance and implacable zeal to destroy that defines the enemies of civil society must be met with an even stronger reaction. This
person (
Ayanna Pressley!!) has no place in a civilized society. There is no shame in admitting it.
That is the central question at the heart of these trials. Is civic nationalism capable of defending itself from its enemies? Can the defenders of participatory order find the courage to do what must be done to preserve the ordered society? If the answer is no, then something else must come forward to beat back the forces of darkness threatening Western civilization. Otherwise, it is the long dark winter Joe Biden has promised.
---------------------
This is the long-hand version of "the only good Communist is a dead Communist".