Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you listen to the Left for any amount of time (and, to be honest, why would you?), eventually the conversation will come to race. And by “eventually” I mean within microseconds. Recently, there’s been a new term that, surprise surprise, directly connects to race: white rage. Whether it’s CNN’s Brian “Mr. Potato Head” Stetler claiming Fox News’ Tucker Carlson stokes white rage or current Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark “Not Vanilli” Milley testifying the military should take training to avoid white rage, it seems the Left wants to make it a thing, and a racial thing at that.

But, just like with Critical Race Theory, it’s not exactly clear what white rage is. Good thing there’s someone who can cut through the bullshit and get to the heart of the matter. But since that person is off, you’ll have to let me do it.

white rage

What the Left thinks it means – white people’s reaction when their power and influence in the world is threatened, the most important problem in America today

What it really means – an accusation with little actual proof, but a lot of actual racism

As a white man, I get labeled with a lot of shit from the Left based solely on the color of my skin and what they believe what I believe. The Left sees me as a Bible-thumping, flyover country bumpkin who hates gays, blacks, women, albino midget Eskimos who walk with a limp, and so on. Now, to be fair, they are right about the albino midget Eskimo bit, but the rest of it is based off a serious of assumptions the Left has deemed to be true without affirmative proof.

And that’s the same basic principle behind white rage. As Leftists can’t leave a PR crisis untouched, they point to the 1/6 “insurrection” as evidence and bludgeon anyone who supports Donald Trump as someone who is one bad day away from being a mass shooter or insurgent against America. And if we’re not careful, white rage is going to create chaos (and that’s the Left’s job, darn it)!

Now, where have I heard that kind of verbiage before? Wasn’t there a movement in, say, the mid-to-late 90s that were considered to be dangerous crackpots not unlike the people the Left claim are out there waiting to strike? Why, yes. Yes, there was! It was the militia movement, and the rhetoric started to kick into high gear not long after the Oklahoma City bombing. The Left did their best to paint Timothy McVeigh as the typical militia member, even though he was kicked out of his local militia and had a record voting for Democrats, but why let the facts get in the way of a good narrative, right?

Last time I checked, the militia movement of the 90s didn’t cause any of the things the Left said would definitely happen if we didn’t do something right now. If anything, they just wanted to be by themselves to LARP as the National Guard, which is perfectly fine in my book. Just leave me be and don’t ask me to pay for your reindeer games.

Now, the Left is trying to resurrect the fear of militias and spin it into white rage. Within the Leftist hivemind, it works, mainly because a) it reaffirms their preconceived ideas about non-Leftists, and b) most Leftists today may not have even been born in the 90s or were too young to remember Militia Mania. That makes it easier to be successful than a coke dealer working on the Hunter Biden account. But here’s the thing: the fact it’s easy doesn’t make it right. Just like with the militia movement rhetoric, there isn’t anything concrete that suggests white rage is even a thing.

Except if you look at the Left.

Last year showcased a lot of violence and destruction from members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Although the Left swears up and down they weren’t responsible, the mugshots after the arrests show a different story. It seems most of the people arrested were…white. And the majority of BLM members? Also white. Hmmm…destroying property, attacking cops…that sounds a lot like the way the Left characterized 1/6, doesn’t it? And if 1/6 is an example of white rage, logic might lead us to conclude Antifa and BLM are examples of white rage, too.

Of course, this isn’t about logic. This is about pushing a racist narrative because the Left needs to make us believe white people are evil racist bastards. Call me conspiratorial, but I find it interesting the whole white rage concept didn’t get traction until fairly recently during a time when the Left wants to push Critical Race Theory that teaches…white people are evil racist bastards. With the pushback against CRT coming from mostly white parents, the Left appears to have scrambled to find a reason people might be against it and landed on white rage. On a side note, I swear the Left has a giant wheel with derogatory phrases they spin whenever they want to blame whites for something.

There’s a rule of thumb I’ve seen online that applies here. If you replace the racial word with a different race and think it’s racist, then it’s racist. This concept certainly applies to white rage, but there’s a twist. By assigning rage to whites only, the Left suggests no other race can get angry, which diminishes the other races’ agency. Under the Left’s constantly-changing definition of racism, that would be racism.

But in a Rod Serling-esque twist, I have to point out the ones who claim there is white rage…are white Leftists. They seem to have forgotten in their rush to make white rage all the rage who they are.

Normally this is the part where I give you advice on how to deal with the latest Leftist controversy-du-joir. This time there isn’t any advice to give because white rage is going to fall in on itself without us having to lift a finger. There is simply too much implausibility and illogic to adopt at once for it to survive much outside of the Leftist bubble. But should you run into a Leftist bound and determined to talk about white rage, ask them how they felt about the Antifa folks arrested in Portland and how they were predominantly white.

Then ask them to repeat what they said about white rage.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are a lot of things I could say about the recent storming of the Capitol Building, but not a lot of them are flattering. Even so, my criticisms would be a mixture of legitimate concern and more than a little mockery as Donald Trump supporters tried LARPing as Antifa for a few hours. But, I’m not sure I would go as far as the Left has in how they’ve presented the protest-turned-plundering and selfie expedition. Instead, the Left has made the entire affair into a breach of our country’s laws.

Yep, our Leftists friends found a new word in their 365 Reasons To Complain Calendar: insurrection. As you might expect, there are differing opinions on whether what happened at the Capitol rises to that level, but the Left has pretty much decided it did. And if you disagree with them, you’re obviously supporting insurrection against the country and, thus, are just as guilty. If the Left is correct on this, prison overcrowding is going to get a lot worse.

Are they right? Let’s find out!

insurrection

What the Left thinks it means – trying to overthrow a government through violent and destructive means, mainly by Trump supporters

What it really means – anything that the Left sees as threatening to their power base

I did a little digging online to make sure I had a workable definition of the word, and merriam-webster.com came through for me. Their definition of insurrection is as follows:

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Keep this in mind for later because it’s going to be relevant. Unlike the rest of my writing.

Insurrection is a violation of federal law, so it’s a pretty serious charge and shouldn’t be thrown around lightly unless you have reason to do it. And, no, merely being a Trump supporter isn’t a good enough reason. Still, this might be considered a semantic argument rather than anything based on the law. It won’t satisfy the Left, but here is the legal definition as found on legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com:

A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence

Oooh. Might be in a little trouble there, folks.

Well, to paraphrase a former President, it all depends on what your definition of rebellion is. At the heart of both of the definitions posted above is the concept of rebelling against the government. And it’s in how the Left views the government where things get stickier than an explosion at a cotton candy convention.

The Left believes government is the be-all and end-all of everything, from paying for pet projects involving the mating habits of the rare Argentinian albino fourteen-toed tree sloth to promoting values that advance the Left’s agenda. If you disagree with that notion, even if it’s because there is no such thing as an Argentinian albino fourteen-toed tree sloth, the Left sees that as a threat to the government as a whole and, by extension, themselves.

Except, of course, unless it’s people on their side of the political spectrum, like Black Lives Matter and Antifa. When they take over a federal building, cause destruction, and advocate overthrowing the entire government, it’s cheeky and fun, not evil and seditious like when the MAGA crowd does it! It’s totes cool! And, unfortunately for them, it’s also the very definition of insurrection, albeit taken to a much larger extreme.

Where Trump supporters might have some wiggle room is the actual purpose of the protests at the Capitol Building. To them, Donald Trump is the government (among other things). Everyone else is either an ally or part of the “Deep State.” In order for the legal definition of insurrection to be met, it would have to be against the government, and since the protests were in support of Donald Trump, they could argue (please check local listings for likelihood this will work) they were protesting the Deep State and their actions are consistent with that. Granted, this is a bit of a stretch, but it can’t be dismissed out of hand.

Along the same lines (and with equal stretching) is the argument the protestors weren’t trying to overthrow the government, but rather a specific function of the government. In this case, it’s the certification of the Electoral College vote. Although there is likely to be at least one pocket of protestors who might be stupid enough to admit they were trying to overthrow the government, most of the people there weren’t.

Wait a minute…I’ve heard that same argument before…something about Antifa/BLM…but I’m sure the people who advanced that argument with them are right there defen…nevermind.

The Left and the Right are guilty of guilt by association here, so their current positions are as valid as a homemade PowerBall ticket. From where I sit, there are very few Trump supporters who can and should be charged with insurrection, but there are also very few BLM and Antifa members who can and should also be charged along with the Trump supporters. The issue is ideological blinders prevent both the Left and the Right from being honest about who should get charged. As you might have guessed by now, I have no problem charging the guilty, even if/when I agree with them. That’s because the law isn’t supposed to be ideologically tinted. Lady Justice has a blindfold on because that’s how justice is meted, or at least should be. If we hold our allies to one standard and our opponents to another, that’s not justice; that’s favoritism.

I’m not going to hold my breath for the Left to catch up on this, but I will continue to hold the only standard that needs to be held in this case: if you do the crime, you do the time.

Oh, and keep your eye on the sparrow.