Status 451: Days of Rage

Avatar

Jaybird

Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

84 Responses

  1. Avatar Jaybird says:

    I wonder how much of this is due to the then-proximity to the draft.

    When the military is something that, seriously, every able-bodied man knows that he’s got a shot at partaking in, does that change something about society?

    If something like what happened in the 70’s happened today… what would be the response? “Workplace violence” will only work for so long…Report

  2. As the comments point out, this is all the Jews’ fault.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird says:

      I originally read the essay on the 20th and sent the email suggesting the essay to Trumwill on the 21st.

      The points in the essay hadn’t yet been undercut by Sam J’s insights when I originally read it.Report

      • I think that’s spelled “underlined”.Report

        • Avatar Jaybird says:

          The essay talked about the Jews?

          Is this one of those things where I’m not hearing obvious dogwhistles?Report

          • Avatar Jaybird says:

            There was this part:

            Lefties say, “Well, that’s Nazis, they only do that to Nazis; Nazis are different, you have to shut that shit down, etc.” Great. Except that Lefties pull the same “shut this shit down!” stuff on mainstream Righties on college campuses, all the while calling them Nazis.

            Hell, Lefties said Ted Cruz was a Nazi, Mitt Romney was a Nazi, George W. Bush was a Nazi. I’ve done human rights work that had me working in proximity to the U.S. military, so at a professional meeting a Lefty called me a Nazi.

            So if you tell me that I’m a Nazi, and tell me people I respect are Nazis, and tell me you’re in favor of going out and beating up Nazis, guess what? I am suddenly very interested in the physical safety of Nazis.

            And I’m Jewish.

            Which, lemme tell ya, was downright prescient, wasn’t it?Report

          • It talked about how the left is an organized conspiracy aimed at destroying everything we hold near and dear, abetted by the mainstream liberals who pretend they’re altruists but really want to murder us all in our beds, which the right is helpless against since they’re just individuals bound together only by their love of freedom.

            Who could have predicted that would have led to anti-semitism?Report

          • Avatar DensityDuck says:

            Well, there was the part where the guy wrote

            But think about it this way: who’s in SDS leadership?

            SDS leadership is disproportionately well-off Jewish kids at elite universities. The kind of people who create Facebook.

            Well, in 1968 you can’t go to the Bay Area & create a killer app, so if you want to disrupt stuff you literally have to start a revolution. And that’s the equation: Paranoid fervor of chemtrail-sniffers + Silicon Valley’s faith in its ability to change the world = the Weather Underground.

            Report

            • Avatar Jaybird says:

              Huh, I suppose I need to be better at making distinctions between “the people who did this were Jewish Ivy League Types” and “The Jews Did This“.

              Were the folks in SDS leadership Jewish?

              Or is that something that I shouldn’t even freaking notice and why am I bringing this up oh my god?Report

              • Avatar Kim says:

                Jay,
                apparently mentioning that is less bad than mentioning who was in charge of the particular banks involved in the 2009 banking crisis. That’s gotten me warnings around here.

                Next it’ll be bad to blame the Dutch for the Tulip Financial Crisis.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck says:

                It’s true that there’s a difference between “Jewish” as a stereotype smear and “J-E-W-S” blood-libel conspiracy thinking.Report

      • Avatar DensityDuck says:

        I like the part where he says that God in the Old Testament is actually a demon who was lying to everyone about the Jews being the good guys.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater says:

      Rightwingers should do everyone a public service and list the degrees of separation between Jews and apocalyptic outcomes in a handy, easy to read pamphlet. It gets so confusing!!Report

  3. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    I remember reading a review of this book when it was originally published that was largely fair but did say that the author clearly had a pro law and order/prosecutor outlook.

    The review published confirms that to me. The book could be interesting but I think it is vastly overstating how much support mainstream liberals gave to 1970s radicals. It is true that “radical chic” was a thing and Leonard Bernstein did host parties for the Black Panthers but the Black Panthers also did things like set up school lunch programs and neighborhood health clinics. The Weather Underground and Symbonese Liberation Army were a radical fringe, albeit ones more active than the Black Bloc.

    Yet the right-wing wants to believe that all mainstream liberals and Democrats were really cheering on the radicals and the violence. This was not true in the United States or in Europe. Social Democrat Willy Brandt was tough on the Badder-Meinoff Gang. Something that was illustrated in the great novel, the Last Honor of Katrina Blum.

    And as Mike notes, the comments out there are full of really far-out anti-Semitism. My god, Jews wrote the Koran as a conspiracy to create Islam and a war against Christianity. Jaybird, do you really want to be associated with this kind of stuff? Is your radar set to finding interesting so high that you just dive deep into the wellsprings of hate?Report

    • Avatar Jaybird says:

      Jaybird, do you really want to be associated with this kind of stuff? Is your radar set to finding interesting so high that you just dive deep into the wellsprings of hate?

      What are we talking about? Reading the essay in the first place?

      I love reading essays.

      Reading essays that are also read by nutballs?

      Hey, sometimes I end up reading essays that are also read by nutballs.

      I suppose I should do a better job of waiting until the comments to the essay I enjoyed reading have died down, wait to see if any nutballs commented, and then decide whether I want someone else to read the original essay.

      But when I read the original essay, the nutballs hadn’t yet commented on it.Report

      • Avatar Damon says:

        Screw the comments. While they provide an interesting “peek into certain sectors of society”, what is said there has no bearing on the original writing AT ALL. That stands or falls on it’s own merit.

        Haters gonna hate. Nuts going to be squirelly.

        But because you had the temerity to post a link to an essay you are forever “associated” with what some wack-job said on that site in the comments. Yeah…..you should worry about that a lot @JaybirdReport

      • Avatar Jaybird says:

        Also, I’d like to point out the following comment that you may remember:

        I check 538 for anxiety and Princeton and the Upshot to calm down,

        I would rather read essays that make me upset that are accurate than read essays that calm me down that are wrong and will be demonstrated to have been wrong, and made bad assumptions, and require the writer to eat a bug on live television.Report

    • Avatar Kim says:

      Saul,
      So let me guess, you’re broadly in favor of the people having nice parties for Hamas as well?
      Because Hamas is a charitable organization, a political organization, and a terrorist organization.Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck says:

      “do you really want to be associated with this kind of stuff? ”

      Please tell us what other blogs you read, and what accounts you follow on social media, so that I can cherry-pick the comments and smear you with the rotten ones.Report

  4. Avatar Brent F says:

    This essay is the pefect combination of half-extremely insightful, half-batshit perspective I’ve come to expect from the Clarkhat.Report

    • Avatar Damon says:

      So, basically like the MSM then yes?Report

    • Avatar Jaybird says:

      Yeah, I thought so too.

      It was awesome.Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck says:

      It’s actually neither, it’s one of the other writers at Status 451 (and as far as I can tell they were never affiliated with Popehat).Report

      • Avatar Brent F says:

        I realized my mistake on the authorship after I said that. So instead I’ll say this author that writes on Clark’s site is provokes a similar to reaction to Clark’s work in its combination of insight and bugfuckery. Which is I would say is a tendency to analysis a small thing well, but to over-generalize from that small thing to make excessively grandious theories that they then widely over-apply. Good analysist, awful theorists.Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq says:

      The entire essay seemed 100% premium, grade A batshit to me. It was an exercise in trying to extrapolate what happened in the late 1960s and early 1970s to today and painting the Democratic Party of the present as a covert force that supports violent Social Justice Warrior radicals. This is even though nearly all political violence is on the right and the connection between the Alt-Right and the Republican Party is closer than that between the Democratic Party and BLM.Report

      • Avatar Morat20 says:

        I don’t know if you’ve heard, but a black bloc anarchist punched a white supremacist in the face.

        And sadly, the left felt schadenfreude.The Great American experiment is over. It’s time to join Team Right now, if you’re not a horrible hypocritical leftist.Report

        • Avatar Stillwater says:

          And sadly, the left felt schadenfreude.

          But none of the critics are sad that the left felt shadenfreude about the punching, they’re sad that the left is so tactically stupid that they permit themselves to publicly feel that way.

          You gotta climb that ladder to see the truth!!Report

          • And they way we embraced Madonna for saying she’d blow up the White House, together with the way the right shunned Ted Nugent for wanting Obama to suck on his gun — man, we’re awful.Report

      • Avatar Gaelen says:

        It also said explicitly that during the era it talked about that only the left harbored those who committed political violence. Which kind of ignores the state sponsored political violence that these movements were a reaction against.Report

        • Avatar Jaybird says:

          It didn’t say “only the left harbored those who committed political violence”.

          It said:

          I’ll say this much for righty terrorist Eric Rudolph: the sonofabitch was caught dumpster-diving in a rare break from hiding in the woods. During his fugitive days, Weatherman’s Bill Ayers was on a nice houseboat paid for by radical lawyers.

          The examples it gave were explicit and specific.

          And measurable, for that matter.Report

          • Avatar Gaelen says:

            And Bull Conner was an elected member of the local government. Or we could use the lynchings which in which the white perpetrators weren’t ‘caught,’ or were acquitted. All acts of political violence in which the perpetrators were harbored/protected by the conservative community.

            Suffice to say, there are other examples. He decided to use a worse example from a different era.Report

            • Avatar Brent F says:

              Which is the structural reason for why the violent “left” was better at the revolutionary cell game. Reactionaries don’t form revolutionary cells, they control the levers of state violence or form imprompto gangs/mobs.

              The “right” revolutionaries were by their very nature going to be the tiny fraction that are beyond being reactionaries and seeking an extremist revolution. In America that’s largely the province of the Neo-nazis (distinct from the Klan, who get their guys in local government in order to run hog wild) and violent religous groups.Report

              • Avatar aaron david says:

                But this assumes that the state was right-wing at that time. The revolutionary groups are pretty easy to identify as left wing, they call themselves that along with identifying left wing philosophies etc. But the state, especially outside the US at the time, was not always so explicitly rightist.

                Rather, the state employs violence in support of the state much of the time, it seems to me. In other words, the revolutionary activities before ’68 and Nixon where definitely anti-war, but the Johnson administration was also very pro civil rights, signing the civil rights act in ’64, the war on poverty, great society-ism.Report

              • Avatar Brent F says:

                National governments aren’t really what I was talking about in this context, although Nixon did his level best to make conflict between political enemies with the feds (something that the histories on the War on Drugs is making increasingly clear). I was thinking more about the local an regional reactionaries, particularly in the South making use of state violence.

                As many know, that wasn’t a Democrat-left, Republican-right thing.Report

              • Avatar aaron david says:

                OK, got ya.Report

              • Avatar Jesse says:

                The FBI while JFK & LBJ were in office bugged MLK’s rooms, sent him letters telling him to kill himself, etc.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird says:

              See? That’s an awesome counter-argument!

              You can point to how Bull Connor was in elected public service until weeks before his death and do a compare/contrast to Bill Ayers!

              You can even do a compare/contrast between the Black Panthers and the KKK and the Weathermen/Weather Underground and both! Awesome! And then compare all of those with the elected government! Awesome!

              But there are still some really weird things that went on when it comes to stuff like “theaters getting bombed” in the 1970’s that seem really, really weird in 2017.

              I’m down with not agreeing with the narrative that Hines constructs to explain what happened in the 70’s.

              But *I* didn’t know about half the things that happened in the essay. And I find myself wondering “Why didn’t I know about these things?”Report

              • Avatar Gaelen says:

                I totally agree regarding his summary of the book, especially the stuff regarding the Black Panthers and Puerto Ricans (which I had never even heard of). Why we didn’t hear about some of these things is an interesting question, one with probably a number of answers.Report

          • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

            How about all the right-wing juntas that over threw democratically elected but socialist or semi-socialist governments in the 1970s? Or is that totally okay because small government?

            How about the fact that Alberto Fujimori is being treated nicely by right-wing Japanese businessmen in exile instead of facing charges in Peru.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird says:

              I apologize for linking to an essay that talked about America in the 1970’s without also talking about Central America in the 1970’s.

              Please provide an essay to Trumwill that you’d like me to read and argue about and I read it and then find something in it to argue with you about.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater says:

                I think he’s calling you out on your inherent anti-left, pro-right inclinations more than anything else, Jaybird.

                And, well, you do have anti-left, pro-right inclinations.Report

              • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

                I’d say kneejerk more than inherent though. I don’t think Jay is that right-wing. I suspect he would do the right-thing if he saw Neo-Nazis attack or harass a minority person. But he does seem drawn to right-wing arguments because they seem more fresh, more interesting, and more hot-takey than whatever liberals are offering.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                “Right-wing arguments”.

                What is meant by this? National Review? Weekly Standard? David Brooks? George Will? FirstThings?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater says:

                Anti-liberal.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                Pro-Enlightenment.

                Where they don’t overlap, yeah. I suppose I see how I could be seen as “anti” whatever that would be.Report

              • Avatar LeeEsq says:

                I think this could have been said better like “I have no doubt he would do the right think…”Report

              • Avatar Kim says:

                Saul,
                Wait, what the fuck is the “right thing” if you see neonazis attack or harass a minority person?

                Are we talking call the police, who will GET THERE IN AN HOUR?

                Or are we talking hauling out a gun and murder the fucker?

                [Yes, I suppose there are other options. These seem the least likely to cause damage to me and mine. Suggest others if you think they’re appropriate.]Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                Trumwill had a quote the other day that made much sense to me.

                “My gods are dead and my enemies are in power.”

                I will admit that I do gain some consolation from the lamentations of the Social Justice crowd.

                But that’s not being pro-right.

                But I can see how someone might say “well, they’re not on my side, therefore they’re on the other side.”Report

              • Avatar Kim says:

                Jay,
                The SJ crowd is being paid for by the right. But the memes are self-propagating.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck says:

                I love, love, love how Jaybird has never said anything different than what he’s saying now and yet somehow he’s anti-left, pro-right.

                Like, “hey guys, maybe you shouldn’t normalize the idea that suckerpunch-and-run-away is a valid method of political discourse”, that’s a pro-right idea?

                “hey, if you keep telling people who ask to hang out with you that they aren’t cool enough to hang out with you, eventually nobody will want to hang out with you” is a pro-right idea?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                In the same way that they act as avatars for certain beliefs for me, I act as an avatar for certain beliefs for them.

                I don’t really have too much of a problem with that.

                I wish that they were less into tying moral judgments into that sort of thing but, hey. It’s not like I haven’t done that. That’s one hell of a siren’s call.Report

              • Avatar gregiank says:

                Maybe its more of the “reflexive opposition” thing which rings oddly.Report

          • Avatar LeeEsq says:

            The essays implies that the entire liberal establishment was in on coddling the radicals though. A few radical lawyers putting Bill Ayers on a houseboat is not the entire liberal establishment or most Democratic Party voters.Report

        • Avatar Brent F says:

          This is one of my takeaways, as well as ignoring the extensive informal poltiical violence the right then and later was better at than the rest. Segregationists didn’t need a acronym or a kooky manifesto to beat and kill civil rights activists after all.

          There’s a point that the far-left did this one particular type of political violence more and with more support than the far-right of the time. i.e. cell-based “revolutionary” activity. Than does not extend itself to a grand theory of American political violence like he seems to think though.Report

      • Avatar Brent F says:

        The analysis of what the happened in the 1960s and 70s was interesting to a degree is what I was saying.

        The extrapolation to today or to a grand theory of the American Left to the American Right (in particular the idea that everything falls into Left v Right) is pretty batshit to me.

        Which is what I associate with Clark’s work. He can make a pretty interesting point about a small thing. He then blows it up into a grand idea about the world without considering if his idea can scale that large without running into confounding factors, or considering the perspective of someone who isn’t like him. It makes he and people like him interesting to read because there might be a useful idea in there that I wasn’t primed to consider, but it comes mixed in with a lot of nuttery.Report

      • Avatar Dark Matter says:

        This is even though nearly all political violence is on the right

        Expand on this please.

        We’re looking at a left wing terror group running around blowing things up which was cheered on by mainstream left. Similarly I can think of some union getting upset at lines being crossed and killing several dozen civilians just to make a point. And then we have the occasional riots by groups mainstream left needs to get elected.

        That’s a pretty high bar to exceed, much less exceed to the point where “nearly all political violence” is Right.Report

        • Similarly I can think of some union getting upset at lines being crossed and killing several dozen civilians just to make a point.

          Is that something that happened, or a hypothetical?Report

          • Avatar Dark Matter says:

            Dark Matter: Similarly I can think of some union getting upset at lines being crossed and killing several dozen civilians just to make a point.

            Mike Schilling: Is that something that happened, or a hypothetical.

            96 to 98 dead (guests of the hotel count as civilians), 140 injured, root cause union thinking management plans to fire 60 union workers and replace them with non-union.

            Wiki’s write up is kind to the union btw, I’ve seen other write ups where other members of the union enabled it.

            Correction, wiki does cover it: “he had urged hotel employees to make a “curtain” to shield him from view as he started the fire.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dupont_Plaza_Hotel_arsonReport

              • Avatar Dark Matter says:

                My strong inclination is to discount the lone nuts and look at organizations. John Hinckley wasn’t right wing when he was stalking Carter nor left wing when he shot Reagan.

                Eric Rudolph hits the radar as a lone nut, and as far as I can tell, got zero support from any organization much less any politician. He was hiding out in the wilderness by himself for a reason.

                McVeigh had help from his friend Nichols, there might have been a few other people who knew about it, maybe enough to stop it. The amount of political support they got (before or after) was zero, and remains zero.

                You contrast that with political support (either at the time or on going) for all the Leftish groups I mentioned. For example BLM could burn down a city and Left politicians would still be supporting them.

                The closest thing I can think of as far as mainstream Right political support for violence would be the Pro-Life movement flirting with thinking that shooting abortion doctors was a good thing (that didn’t last long), and that riot in some Florida official’s office during the Bush v Gore count of the ballots (at a handwave I’m limiting this to the last 50 years).Report

              • Avatar Kim says:

                Dark,
                We’ve got tons of righties, including those who showed up out west and camped out on government property. Ruby Ridge, bunches of people who want “no government no way”. The government is better at “leaving these people alone”, that’s all.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter says:

                The government is better at “leaving these people alone”, that’s all.

                IMHO that’s mixing the “violent” with the “potentially violent”, which seems unreasonable.

                But it is probably where “The Right is more violent” claim originates.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck says:

                You can do this if you want, but don’t you fuckin’ dare turn around and mope about BSDI arguments.Report

            • Avatar Dark Matter says:

              Although I still consider the write up to be very, very, kind. At some point, after enough of the union knows about it and gets involved to support, you have to say the union was involved.Report

        • Avatar Chip Daniels says:

          We’re looking at a left wing terror group running around blowing things up which was cheered on by mainstream left.

          WOW. Where is this group?
          I wanted to find their Facebook page and like them, perhaps even join, but no luck.Report

          • Avatar Dark Matter says:

            WOW. Where is this group?
            I wanted to find their Facebook page and like them, perhaps even join, but no luck.

            They broke up and became mainstream Left. I think one of them was an Obama mentor.

            Just think about that. You spend a few years setting off bombs, and then just rejoin what passes for the mainstream and they let you, even embrace you.

            I just can’t picture the Right doing the same thing for McVeigh.Report

            • Avatar Chip Daniels says:

              You can’t?
              Really you can’t?

              Allow me to familiarize you with Rep. Peter King, Republican of Long Island.
              http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/

              You may also wish to read up on Luis Posada Corrales, a terrorist who set of a bomb blowing up an airliner killing 73 innocent civilians, later given sanctuary by several American Presidents.

              Then perhaps read the history of the Nicaraguan Contras, a terrorist group who were embraced by Ronald Reagan.

              Or the Afghan Mujahadeen who were so warmly embraced by the Right that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher Republican from California proudly posts a picture with them.

              One of their leaders was named Osama Bin Laden, perhas you’ve heard of him? The Leftists finally killed him.
              Report

              • Avatar j r says:

                The Leftists finally killed him.

                That is a really strange claim, unless you happen to know something about the political leanings of Seal Team 6 or the CIA agents on the Bin Laden Issue Station.

                People should stop doing that thing where they attribute to the president everything that happened in the four or eight year period that president is in office. That’s not how the country works. That’s not even how the government works.Report

              • Avatar Kim says:

                jr,
                Yeah. I have heard the binLaden kill pinned on Clinton, who did the operational analysis that saw the problem with bush’s methods.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter says:

                the Afghan Mujahadeen

                Yes, back in the time when they were fighting off the Soviets (who invaded them because they were insufficiently communist or something), the Mujahadeen were our allies. And your point is?

                You may also wish to read up on Luis Posada Corrales, a terrorist who set of a bomb blowing up an airliner killing 73 innocent civilians, later given sanctuary by several American Presidents.

                Sanctuary? We arrested him and tried very hard to find a country to deport him to which wouldn’t torture him. When that failed we tried hard to find some way to keep him in prison here. He’s out of prison because he was found not guilty of whatever. This is an example of the government failing to deal with a criminal, but not from lack of trying.

                the Nicaraguan Contras, a terrorist group who were embraced by Ronald Reagan.

                An example of us openly supporting another country’s revolutionary movement, complicated by Congress and POTUS fighting over who was in charge of foreign policy.

                Rep. Peter King, Republican of Long Island.

                An open supporter of another country’s revolutionary movement… although weirdly he seems to be doing this in his personal life rather than his professional one. As odious as he is, afaict he’s done no violence here and what he’s doing seems to be covered under the 1st AM.

                None of these are examples of someone running around setting off bombs or murders or whatever inside of America, and then joining the mainstream (or, worse, apparently never leaving the mainstream), without changing ideology.

                In the last 50 years, the American Left is a lot more politically violent than the Right, and it continues to be more violent.

                It’s easy for me to picture some “protest” getting out of hand and burning down a city (or just having some people beaten up and/or killed), and then the Dems continuing to give support to its leaders. There’s even multiple groups where this might come from.

                The GOP equiv would be… what? I can picture some separatists shooting it out with the police, but until that happens we don’t know whether the mainstream right supports them or cooperates with their arrest.Report

  5. Avatar Kolohe says:

    You gotta see, Jaybird, the enemy is capitalism so it really doesn’t matter what you link to, nor who winds on commenting on those links.

    You merely have to submit to the State. Or just die like a good kulak.Report

  6. Avatar Michael Drew says:

    i sold lemonade and smoothies for Karleton Armstrong over a number of summers when I was a yout in Madison.Report

  7. Avatar DensityDuck says:

    I’ve never been a big one for “wooo plagiarism“, but I do wish he would have at least credited Scott Alexander for the bit about the Dazexiang Uprising.Report