Category Archives: Ethics

FRED REED: Bads, Wads, And The Unlikelihood Of Reason: Thoughts On Two Verdicts

Crime, Critique, Ethics, FRED REED, GUNS, Justice, Law, Race, The South

In both the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases, we have Black Advocates, and White Advocates (Bads and Wads to avoid typing fatigue) squalling at each other

By Fred Reed

Oh God, oh God. Can we humans not contract out our governance to, say, cephalopods and stop trying to manage our own affairs? I mean, really. Girl octopodes are both smart and leggy. They aren’t crazy. What more do we want?

Recently we have had the verdicts in the Rittenhouse and Arbery trials, with which I assume the reader to be at least broadly familiar. If you are not, I congratulate you for avoiding the grocery-store tabloid intellectual level regnant in America.

Today, everything is identity politics, emotion, and herd instinct. Loyalty to one’s herd trumps all else, to include truth. Outside the courtroom, treatment of both trials was racial, ideological and, often, disingenuous if not dishonest. Inside the courtroom, neither was. This pack-instinct politics is an embarrassment.

In both cases, we have Black Advocates, and White Advocates (hereinafter Bads and Wads to avoid typing fatigue) squalling at each other. The Wads have never seen a white man who was guilty and the Bads, one who wasn’t. I don’t think I have ever encountered so much tendentious twaddle in one place, and I have lived in Washington.

But the juries got both right. For a practicing curmudgeon, this is devastating. There may be a hidden underlying vein of reason in the country.

In the Rittenhouse matter, the case, that the kid shot in self-defense, is obvious on the facts.  The jury agreed. In Arbery, the defense of the killers is weak, contrived, and illogical. The jury agreed.

Now, Arbery, briefly: Arbery was a black man who on at least five occasions (is said to have) entered a suburban house under construction, walked around, sometimes on surveillance video, and left without stealing anything. In Georgia, this is called “criminal trespass,” and is a misdemeanor, like littering. No theft, no vandalism, no burglary, no felony.

On the day of his death, Arbery, a known jogger, came out of the house, carrying nothing, not anything stolen, not a weapon, not a cellphone, and ran down the street. The three killers, assuming on no evidence that he must have committed a crime, began chasing him in two pickups. They ran him down in a chase lasting five minutes, used the trucks to force him in desired directions, trapped him on a street between the trucks. Apparently Arbery, exhausted and desperate, cornered, attacked the guy who had a twelve-gauge pump, who killed him with it. One of the three took video during the chase.

They later said they killed him in self-defense and claimed that they were conducting a citizen’s arrest. The latter claim, farfetched and not occurring until well after the event, was the only possible defense a lawyer could come up with. I suspect a lawyer did come up with it.

The self-defense approach doesn’t fly. If you are the aggressors, as for example chasing with pickups a frightened man, and you kill him when he finally fights back, in law you cannot claim self-defense. And when the odds are three men and two guns against an unarmed defender, self-defense is not persuasive.

Here the story becomes sordid. When I heard shortly after the killing that there would be no indictments, I thought, uh-huh, the fix is in. And the fix was indeed in. One of the killers who had worked in law enforcement called his friend, Brunswick District Attorney Jackie Johnson, and got her to  prevent an investigation, for which she was later indicted on a felony charge. The investigation and arrest came months later and only after the video went viral.

The jury found all three guilty of murder, whereupon white advocates called the proceedings a show trial, political, with the jury being intimidated, anti-white, and the like.

None of this is true. (If you have the interest and spare time, here is the prosecutions case in its entirety. Judge for yourself.) In identity politics, a show trial is one in which the verdict is not the one one’s herd wants. The jury is then said to be woke, corrupt, left-wing, right-wing, suborned, racist, white-hating, what have you It can’t be that the jury even-handedly pondered the facts and came to a considered conclusion.

Wads, as much as Bads, just make up evidence.  Various WADs stated as fact that Arbery, who frequently jogged through the neighborhood, did so “casing” it for future theft. Since there is no evidence that Arbery committed burglary, ever, this is invention. There is much innuendo, as for example stating that many thefts had occurred in the neighborhood and inviting the reader to conclude that Arbury was the thief. There is exactly no evidence for this.

In libel law this sort of thing is called “actual malice” or “reckless disregard of truth.” But the dead can’t sue.

Why the desperate attempt to find a felony for Arbery to have committed? Because without one,  the defense of making a citizen’s arrest doesn’t fly. That leaves them having hunted Arbery down and killed him with no authority to do so. This is called “murder.”

Citizen’s arrest: A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a person may arrest him on reasonable or probable grounds of suspicion.

The claim of making a citizen’s arrest smells to high heaven. There was no felony. Arbery came out of the house carrying nothing, as the killers could see. No felony had been committed in their presence since none had been committed at all. Further, statements by the three themselves show that they didn’t think Arbery had stolen anything, or didn’t know whether he had. These gut the defense of citizen’s arrest.

When the sheriff showed up, they would certainly have told him approximately, “We thought he was a burglar and so we wanted to hold him until the police came.” They didn’t. They didn’t tell Arbery they were making a citizen’s arrest.

Many seem not to understand the importance of this. The only question in the trial was whether the three were conducting a legitimate citizen’s arrest. If not, then with no right or authority whatsoever they had chased down a man who had not committed a felony, and killed him. That, ladies and gentlemen, is called “murder.”

Let us consider events from Arbury’s standpoint. He was out for a jog, as he had been many times before. He poked around the building site, as he and others had done before. He stole nothing. He didn’t know that he was a burglar in the eyes of the three paladins of justice. He didn’t know that they were planning a citizen’s arrest. Suddenly, armed white men in a pickup accost him, trying to cut him off. This is terrifying. They don’t tell him why. One says, or later claims to have, “I want to talk to you,” probably not in a chirpy voice with a broad smile. From Arbury’s point of view, this is not promising. Remember, he lives in Georgia. Arbury doesn’t reply, as why should he? He tries to evade, which is exactly what I would do. It is, I suspect, what a white person would do if cut off by armed blacks.

What should he have done, trapped, probably scared witless, with a white man pointing a shotgun at him? What does a black man in these circumstances believe to be the intentions of his pursuers? A beating? A rope? Burning? Death? To a white advocate in northern suburbs these may seem silly questions. To a black in Georgia, they don’t. His decision, to fight, got him killed.

It is interesting here to ask what the identity groups would have said had the races been reversed. For example, if three blacks had run down a white college student in otherwise identical circumstances. Or, if Rittenhouse had been a black kid attacked by Republicans, saying that his intent was to protect the right of BLM to hold lawful demonstrations. I think we all know the answer. And, when a nearly all-white jury in the Deep South convicts three white men of killing a black man, you can bet they believe it.

Guilty as charged.

******************************************

FRED REED describes himself as [previously] a “Washington police reporter, former Washington editor for Harper’s and staff writer for Soldier of Fortune magazine, Marine combat vet from Viet Nam, and former long-haul hitchhiker, part-time sociopath, who once lived in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from the Yankee Capital.”
His essays “on the collapse of America” Mr. Reed calls “wildly funny, sometimes wacky, always provocative.”
“Fred is the Hunter Thompson of the right,” seconds Thomas E. Ricks in Foreign Policy magazine. His  commentary is “well-written, pungent political incorrectness mixed with smart military commentary and libertarian impulses, topped off with a splash of Third World sunshine and tequila.”

FRED’S BOOKS ARE ON AMAZON, HERE

FRED’S ARTICLES ARCHIVE

 

 

‘Democrats Are The Real Racists’: An Original, 2013 Mercer Meme

Argument, Communism, Democrats, Ethics, Ilana Mercer, IlanaMercer.com, Morality, Old Right, Race

In my experience over two decades, our side, the Right, often flouts the traditional, honor system of citing sources and crediting originators. Especially when it comes to marginalized, utterly-independent originators: Who’s gonna defend Mercer if I borrow those shiny ideas of hers?

Well, as the great sage Rabbi Hillel said,

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
And if not now, then when?

There are ways less elegant to express how I feel about weak men without honor or a backbone. But do yourself a favor: Don’t mess with me. I’m done with those who do.

In any event, this tendency was documented in painful, but necessary, detail in “The Moral Writer’s First Commandment: Cite Your Sources!“, and in “Citing Sources: Jewish Morality (‘Mussar & Middot’) Demands Acknowledging Those Who Went Before, Intellectually.”

When every other American commentator was kibitzing about Critical Race Theory as Marxism—including the voluble writers on Darren Beattie’s site, Revolver News—yours truly, as is her wont, had dug in her heels since 2019, insisting that CRT was ALL anti-whiteness, and nothing more, not Marxism. But the anti-whiteness of American politics has been a theme that has informed my work  since 2011.

In the latter post, I chronicle Darren Beattie’s contempt-oozing snark of a tweet about myself—this woman, as he put it—daring to assert that she was an originator of the anti-white impetus of Critical race Theory; that I was indeed first to this take on Critical Race Theory as unadulterated anti-whiteness, and that any other claims were lies.

But in our immoral politics and anti-intellectual life, Beattie, a popular young cub (who worked for Trump) trumps an unaffiliated, tenured paleolibertarian thinker and theorist with little influence. (That’s why I will no longer vote for these envenomed, disrespectful assholes. When all is said and done, they don’t give a damn about us little guys and gals.)

2. “Democrats Are The Real Racists” is a meme that originated in Mercer and is now popular across the Internet.

In “GOP Tit-For-Tat Twits,” (08.02.13 @ 10:52 pm) I wrote:

But Republicans are as dazed and confused as the rival gang, reducing wrong-doing to these PC “isms,” and partaking in the silly tit-for-tat: “No, you’re a sexist, I’m not. No, Democrats are racists; we’re the party of Lincoln.” Blah-blah. Pathetic.

The meme or idea was further fleshed out in a column, “Fee-Fi-Fo-Fem, I Smell The Blood Of A Racist” (May 16, 2014):

Why have serious libertarians succumbed to a tit-for-tat spat? Are libertarians as dazed and confused as Republicans? The latter have certainly dignified the rival gang’s Stalinist show-trial tactics, with more holier-than-thou racial one-upmanship: “Democrats are the real racists; Republicans are the party of Lincoln, the liberator of blacks. We’re against abortion and welfare because we love blacks. … Blah, blah, blah.”

SOURCES:

The Moral Writer’s First Commandment: Cite Your Sources!

Citing Sources: Jewish Morality (‘Mussar & Middot’) Demands Acknowledging Those Who Went Before, Intellectually

“GOP Tit-For-Tat Twits”

Fee-Fi-Fo-Fem, I Smell The Blood Of A Racist

 

UPDATED (11/16/021): No-Information, Me-Me, FoxNews Broadcasters

Celebrity, Conservatism, Critique, Culture, Ethics, Etiquette, Journalism, Media, Republicans

One of the biggest egos in an anchor’s chair at Fox New—she lives for the sound of her own voice—is Laura Ingraham. She generally monologues over her guests at length, and then informs them, “Hurry; you have 30 seconds to say your piece.” (a WND reader is on to her.) Although we’re living in grim times—the demented grin never leaves the face of zero-information Ingraham.

Almost as bad as Ingraham is Fox’s Jesse Watters. He absolutely blankets a guest’s input with his own self-important bloviation. The saving grace of Watters is that he is rather amusing.

Another strike, however, against Watters is that he was made BIG by Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly kindly introduced Watters to viewers of “The Factor.” The younger man, however, has never publicly given O’Reilly credit, not least during the 25th anniversary celebrations of the network.

Watters, moreover, is not telling the truth when he says “The Five” was his first big gig on Fox News, as claimed. O’Reilly gave him a gig. Any gig on “The Factor” was big, because “The Factor” was huge. This makes Watters an ingrate.

UPDATED (11/16/021): Laura Ingraham can’t imagine or comprehend that a Netflix show called “You” is not about her.

This is a great clip of The Ego and Idiocy of Ms. Ingraham.

Actually Raimond Arroyo is the only person loud-mouth Laura ever lets talk without interruption.

UPDATED (10/20): Dr. Peter McCullough: Ethicist, Scholar, Clinician, Healer, Damns The Medical Majority For Moronity And Malpractice

Argument, COVID-19, Criminal Injustice, Critique, Ethics, Healthcare

Has CNN’s Sanje Gupta, M.D., Anthony Fauci, or all the other medical frauds parading their manifest ignorance on television ever wept over a “medical protocol” whereby elderly Covid-19 patients were sent home to wait until they could no longer breath?

46.21 minutes into his address to the organization of the great Dr. Jane Orient (fellow columnist at WND), Peter McCullough—not one of whose Covid patients has gone untreated—weeps for these patients abandoned by their doctors to die. Of course medicine MUST be used off-label. It always has been. G-d bless this man. He is one of a kind.

Nuremberg trials for the rest, one and all.

Dr. McCullough is an ethicist, scholar, clinician, healer, all rolled into one—and perhaps the most brilliant, humane voice of reason regrading the COVID-19 vaccine and Covid-19, in general.

He confirms what most of the thinking unvaccinated know: No regular, longitudinal, scientific safety reviews are being presented to the public on the mRNA jabs.

McCullough presents comprehensive data to support the existence of a “tight temporal relationship” between adverse reactions and the mRNA jab. Causality on this front has been established, he argues. Vaccine failure, moreover, is not honestly reported in the USA (although Israel is doing so splendidly, while it oddly continues to force the failed vaccine on its populace).

I am seldom able to sit through more than a couple of minutes of your average YouTube/Rumble fare. McCullough, however, mesmerizes with his intellectual heft, reservoir of knowledge and humanity. (He doesn’t use his notes.)

Dr. Peter McCullough ‘Therapeutic Nihilism And Untested Novel Therapies’ | AAPS

UPDATED (10/20): It looks like some inquisitive minds—absent from TV’s medical menagerie of mainstream morons—are looking into “the harmful actions of the spike protein.” Facebook, having banned so many thinkers (check), will likely ban this journal article:

Be aware of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: There is more than meets the eye.”