Skip to content

On Tribes, Identity Politics, And Misfits

06 August 2019 @ 18:00

I’ve been reading many posts and such on the three Shootings that took place in Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton over the past weeks.

Any commentary by the Left In America and the Never Trump Right is, as you might expect, Insipid and states a Fantastical View of America as seen through their fun-house mirrors — and is only worth reading if you seek to understand the Tortured Logic of those people.

Rather, I’ve been reading the posts of thoughtful people who live in the Real World.

Let’s explore several of them and their observations and insights…


Over at the Victory Girls Blog, Deanna Fisher writes:

Any fan of comic books knows that the Joker, Batman’s arch-nemesis, needs no motivation to spread chaos. Is this what we are beginning to see as a new trend in terrorism?

But what if we have a horrific new streak of terror happening? What if this is terrorism simply, in the words of “The Dark Knight,” “to watch the world burn,” as the Joker did?

She then quotes from a Twitter thread by Brian Cates [link immediately above].  Some highlights from it:

…We’re now facing something new.

Before, a person intensely motivated by politics would write a manifesto to explain their reasons for resorting to violence.

Shitposting trolls on the chans aren’t trying to affect real political change.

The manifesto is PART of the trolling.

Do you realize what’s happening?

These shitposters **know** how the mainstream media reacts to one of these mass shooting events, how both sides immediately start poring over the manifesto, scouring the social media, each trying to say to the other “AHA! HE BLONGS [sic] TO YOU GUYS!”

Writing a satirical nonsensical manifesto before hand has now become part of the troll.

This is why these guys **INSIST** on surrendering alive. They want to watch the “fun” as the media tries to figure out which ‘side’ they belong to.

We’re having murders done now by nihilists who are doing it just to f**k with people.

There **IS** no deeper purpose. There is no real underlying political motive.

Well, if that is the case, only the Christchurch and El Paso shooters got their wishes fulfilled.  I don’t believe that these Misfits are necessarily that sophisticated.

I would agree, however, that they are Nihilists — people who hate Life.  They fuel The Culture Of Death.  The Leftist Ideology encourages Nihilism in order to further Chaos.

Mrs, Fischer resumes:

In other words, what if what we are seeing is just evil for evil’s sake, like the Joker? There is no defense against that. There is no pattern to be studied. There is no law that you can pass to change the heart of man.

Quite correct.  As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago:

If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?


So, how do we react to evil? All I can suggest is remembering how we reacted after September 11th. The entire country was reeling in pain and grief, but what came out of it was unity. We came together to help one another. Even if you didn’t live in New York, or Washington DC, or Pennsylvania, or lost someone personally, you still felt the enormous weight of sadness and the determination to do something to help. Some gave blood, some donated money, some volunteered for the military, but we all had a sense of purpose and unity. Somehow, we have to find that sense of purpose and unity again. Instead of pointing fingers, we need to offer our hands – in help, in prayer, in service. The political class wants to fight over who is at fault. The American people need to try and unify in the face of evil that doesn’t care whom it destroys. It would help if that sense of unity came from the top, but even if it did, the politics of the moment have so deeply fractured our social fabric that it will be more lasting and meaningful if We The People can come together for the common good without help from government.

Nice thoughts, but her memory is somewhat fuzzy.  After 9-11, the Left waited under their slimy rocks for the air to be less radioactive around their real thoughts.  Any ‘sense of purpose and unity’ was Destroyed by them as soon as they were able crawl out.


Over at American Greatness, Julie Kelly has insights on what’s behind the White Supremacy™ micheghas [tip of the fedora to Kathy Shaidle]:

The “white supremacy” canard is intended to further demonize Trump; falsely defame his supporters as white supremacists; and pressure nervous voters into defeating Trump and Republican candidates next year. The strategy is as cynical as it is pernicious.

And it’s been going-on since the 2016 Election Season, moving up and down in it’s intensity.


Let’s clear one thing up before I get into the details: There is no systemic threat posed by white supremacy. Domestic white terrorists are not the same as, let alone worse than ISIS Jihadis. There has been no massive “surge” in white supremacy activity, as I wrote in November. These groups remain fringe, disorganized, and unrespected.

One does wonder, though, if [as we’ll see below] the disorganized are becoming more organized.

Time for the National Review to rear it’s ugly head:

The editors and writers of National Review are comparing the threat of domestic white terrorism with the threat of international Islamic terrorism while blaming Trump for it all. “It’s time to declare war on white-nationalist terrorism,” wrote David French [BB: Surprise, surprise, surprise], a NeverTrump promoter of the white supremacy fallacy. “It’s time to be as wide awake about the dangers of online racist radicalization as we are about online jihadist inspiration. And it’s time to reject the public language and rhetoric that excites and inspires racist radicals.”

This, according to French, would include comments made by the president related to immigration policy or criticism of Central American migrants breaking U.S. law to enter the country illegally. In his call for war and his argument that Trump has been breeding white terrorists, French posted this tweet by Trump in support of his claim: “Many Gang Members and some very bad people are mixed into the Caravan heading to our Southern Border. Please go back, you will not be admitted into the United States unless you go through the legal process. This is an invasion of our Country and our Military is waiting for you!”

His editors evidently agree with French’s hysteria, insisting that the country should “crush” the evil of white supremacy; Rich Lowry suggests that the FBI should go after white supremacists just like it went after the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s [BB: Nice to have the involvement of ‘Twinkle Toes’ Lowry].

What could possibly go wrong with a plan to ramp up an agency populated by partisan holdovers from the Robert Mueller-James Comey era?…

The FBI is Hopelessly Compromised.  But does that matter now that we are a Democracy?  Power And Control are what matter.

Comey, Booker, Obama, and Pfeiffer are all on-board with the Strategy and have been droning on and on about this subject.


What should frighten every American is that the emerging proposals to mitigate “white supremacy” include a jaw-dropping array of strong-arm tactics that will, in short order, violate the free speech rights of millions of Americans [BB: That’s the whole point] as the government and news media malign anyone they identify as sympathizing with “white supremacy.”

If these measures are enacted, they will give legal and political cover to social media platforms to ban Trump officials, his supporters and perhaps even the president himself—they may extend to anyone in the Republican Party. Guns will be confiscated, careers ruined, and reputations irreparably destroyed. It will be the Kavanaugh hearing and show trials on steroids.

Conservative news and opinion outlets such as this one could be placed on some kind of watch list, or worse, shuttered altogether simply for challenging immigration policy or defending the president. Private companies and financial institutions could be warned against doing business with the Trump campaign or Republican candidates and lawmakers. Donors could be censured under the guise of aiding and abetting a domestic enemy.

MSNBC already is advocating on behalf of taking that path: “Because you keep writing checks to this president, it’s on you . . . because you are funding this white supremacist campaign . . . It is your money that is funding this white supremacy,” claimed Joe Scarborough on Monday’s show.

This attempted Collective Guilting [or is it Gelding?] of us may have worked in the past, but, in this Age Of Trumpicus Pompey Maximus, I doubt it will be as effective.  The times — whether you believe for better of worse — have changed.

Julie Kelly’s fears are not Hysterical; the Threat is Real.


And while the Trump haters scream at shadows and unleash the dogs of war, the real danger — how we address the mental, emotional and social defects in a generation of isolated young men — will be ignored just so #TheResistance can move poll numbers before November 2020.

That’s all it’s ever been about.


Stacy McCain asks a very pertinent question: Why have nerds and losers become a terrorist threat?

Nobody ever paid serious attention to Santino Legan, Patrick Crusius, or Connor Betts before they went on shooting rampages that have made national headlines. Legan killed three people and injured 13 others July 28 at a California food festival before killing himself. Crusius killed 20 people and injured 26 more Saturday in El Paso, Texas, before surrendering to police. Betts killed nine people and injured 20 others in the wee hours of Sunday morning in Dayton, Ohio, before he was shot to death by police. None of these mass murderers had previous criminal records, and all three were young white men — Legan was 19, Crusius is 21, Betts was 24 — who might be described colloquially as nerds or losers….

Even though the Media do not mention their names, their names are known now in the Online World.

As Stacy points out: the Left In America and the Never Trumper Right have exhibited no Caution in commenting on the shootings and blaming it on Trump

…Such comments, however, ignore the fact that similar shooting rampages had been occurring periodically long before Trump’s presidency. From the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in the suburbs of Denver to Micah Xavier Johnson’s 2016 sniper attack on police in Dallas, it’s possible to recite a lengthy list of such incidents that could not possibly have been incited by Trump’s rhetoric. And as for “mentally unstable people” doing “terrible, terrible things,” perhaps Sen. Sanders should recall that it was one of his admirers, James T. Hodgkinson, who opened fire on Republican congressmen at a baseball practice in June 2017.

Come on, Stace: Bernie’s an old man and may well be in the early stages of Dementia [although a case could be made that he has had this illness ever since he became a Socialist].


If we set aside politics and focus instead on the individual perpetrators, what we perceive is that the killers in Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton shared a demographic similarity — young, white, and male — and that they also apparently shared a sense of hopelessness. Only someone who has no hope for future happiness would commit such atrocities. In Legan’s case, officials say he ended his rampage by shooting himself, while Crusius wrote in his “manifesto” that he expected to die during his attack. In other words, their intention was suicidal, and if we know less about Betts’s intent, the consequence was the same. We must therefore ask why these young men considered their own lives so worthless that death was preferable.

Were they simply crazy? Roger L. Simon sees it that way:

This is obviously not politics in any rational sense, although we are hearing endless political statements from pols anxious to exploit the tragedy. It’s about craziness. An epidemic is sweeping the country and has been for some time. Mass shootings are only one manifestation, although arguably the most horrible and extreme one.… Their number is small, even tiny, compared to the total population, but our population is approaching a giant 330 million. If only one-tenth of one percent of that number is seriously disturbed, that’s 330,000 dangerous nut cases.

This is a frightening thing to consider, even as an exercise in random statistical probability, but the “dangerous nut cases” are not randomly distributed throughout the population. In the same way that violent crime in Chicago is not random — the killers there are mainly black and Hispanic young men, often involved in drug trafficking — neither are these “lone wolf” mass-murderers random. They’re young white men motivated by hopelessness that expresses itself as hatred.

Commenting on Mr. Simon’s analysis, I would remark: Here we see the consequences of the success of The Left in making the Abnormal Normal and visa versa.

Stacy then quotes from Robert Evans:

Ever since the [March 15] Christchurch [New Zealand] shooting spree, 8chan users have commented regularly on Brenton Tarrant’s high bodycount, and made references to their desire to “beat his high score” …

What we see here is evidence of the only real innovation 8chan has brought to global terrorism: the gamification of mass violence.

…Until law enforcement, and the media, treat these shooters as part of a terrorist movement no less organized, or deadly, than ISIS or Al Qaeda, the violence will continue. There will be more killers, more gleeful celebration of body counts on 8chan, and more bloody attempts to beat the last killer’s “high score.”


How many adolescent losers, spending hour after hour playing videogames, are potential mass murderers? The experience of social isolation, immersed in digital fantasies of make-believe violence, is not conducive to a hopeful sense of the future….


Jeff Goldstein wrote a damn fine analysis over at the raised-from-the-dead Protein Wisdom.

From Jeff:

3 yrs ago in The Federalist, I noted how the left’s embrace — and political deployment — of identity politics had given rise to, and a perverse justification for (in its hive mind), white supremacy, a blunt rejection of the collective call by the left and academia to demonize whites.

…conservatives should deplore ALL identity and grievance politics, regardless of the color it takes. Intersectionality, however, is the left’s stock and trade, from the academy to the media to Hollywood. Until that is marginalized you won’t kill white supremacy.

And here’s why: Many of the motivations of the white supremacist movement, which Vox Day couched as “alt-right,” were predictable and — again, however perversely — understandable: in a political and cultural ethos wherein white straight Christians had become one of the last “identity groups” eligible for collective hostility and scapegoating there was bound to be push-back. In my piece I counseled the rejection of all identity politics and intersectionality, suggesting instead a return to founding principals: constitutionalism, federalism, republicanism, the rule of law, assimilation, and — most crucially —individualism.


When Rep. AyannaPressley spoke out recently demanding people of color or non-traditional sexuality or certain religions she deems marginalized talk with a voice that matches their public face (black, brown, queer, Muslim), what she was demanding was rank tribalism.

What comes to count as an acceptable “voice,” in Pressley’s dangerous and dehumanizing formulation, is OF COURSE tied to a political stance, with progressives determining for ALL what constitutes “authenticity.” Not only is this blatantly racist, homophobic, and wrong, but it has the further — and intended — effect of delegitimating individuality: there can be no black face with a black voice that doesn’t stridently echo the black identity narrative Progs like Pressley have adopted and sanctioned. And the preferred identity narratives on the left are always grievance narratives posing as empowerment narratives.

Have you noticed that The Left are expert Posers?

…:when anyone not hewing to leftist dogma is labeled a white supremacist, or racist, or – phobe of some kind, that frees up a fringe to embrace it and marshal it for power. The resurgence of white supremacy is but the manifestation of a competing identity narrative in a toxic, Balkanized identity politics culture.

Unless and until the foundations that undergird it are razed it won’t itself be effectively eradicated. It will merely go deeper underground.

As with the Russian Nihilist and Anarchist Movements in the 19th Century — the latter morphing into The Bolsheviks.


To the left and adepts of identity politics [Trump] is an existential threat to their political influence. Individuals thinking and acting individually defang bloc voting by identity, which is key to the left’s coalition power. And the left has shown in the wake of recent shootings and civil unrest that it will not surrender its animating, identity politics program, which it continues ruthlessly to enforce through shaming, doxxing, boycotts, media propaganda, PC language, and physical intimidation. This totalitarian political impulse is at odds with our propositional nation.

It follows that stamping out white supremacy must happen either by force, or by thoroughly and completely rejecting the identity politics and intersectionality the left has mapped over the country and its discourse. We are a country of individuals. We need to act like it.

If we accomplish the latter, the former will burn out.

But can we do it?

  1. bob sykes permalink
    07 August 2019 @ 08:40 08:40

    The Democrat Party, which represents a majority of Americans, now openly incites racial antagonism, if not actual race war. We actually got race war in the 60’s, when race riots wrecked dozens of American cities. That happened without the incitement of leading politicians. Does anyone think a low level, racial, civil war can be avoided? Is the 2020 election the kickoff?

  2. Johnb permalink
    08 August 2019 @ 12:34 12:34

    I’ve never read any white supremacist online. They are separatists. Why doesn’t the left and their “conservative” boot-lickers use the accurate term separatist? Because if they did they would have to explain to the vast horde of white sheep why separatism is bad and what the benefit to whites is in becoming a hated minority in the country built by their ancestors. Nobody supports white supremacism (though the left, and their conservative quislings, openly support non-white supremacism), not Richard Spencer and not the sheep, but an increasing number of whites will support separatism in the future as their situation becomes worse if that option is on the table. Which is why it has to be kept off the table. The group that is not allowed to have group interests is the one that is being exploited, and the beneficiaries are going to fight tooth and nail to keep their slaves – that is why they say supremacist.

    As to the bulk of the articles quoted, just the same old from collaborationist conservatism. It supports the white-hating racism of the left. Given the reality of this society saying you’re against ALL identity politics is objectively anti-white. No pro-white institution is allowed in this country. Hell, no pro-white utterance by any prominent figure is allowed. There is a gross power imbalance. Imagine saying such a thing in Nazi occupied Poland and you’ll understand why talking against ALL identity is actually supporting the anti-white politics of the left. The objection from conservatives to identity politics only comes out when whites are threatening to look after their own interests. As a conservative Jew who claims to be against identity politics Mr. Goldstein has a moral obligation to publicly condemn the racism of his own community, and to condemn how racist and deeply harmful identity organizations like the ADL are to the well being of whites. Not just now and then but on a continuing basis. The same goes for other conservatives, you don’t have the right to claim to be against identity politics until you come out consistently against identity groups like the ADL and the NAACP, which of course you never really do. Why don’t you advocate stripping them of tax exemptions and prohibiting them from interacting with government agencies? Because your objections to “identity politics” are phony and aimed only at whites.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: