16 June 2020 - #MAGAanalysis

Black Lives ABSOLUTELY DO Matter

For our analysis, let's break down these three parameters:

1) Truth of Falsehood
2) Ends and Means
3) Politics OR Principles
2) I watched Tucker Carlson's incredible monologue tonight, and while I watched, I was persuaded by him. I had no idea that the NYC PD was shutting down its plain clothes section. I was outraged. I was enraged. I was furious. But...

I was wrong.
3) The truth is, I do NOT know enough about BLM, the political outfit, or #BlackLivesMatter , the social media movement gone live now, the social activist movement, to be either angry or not angry. I am ignorant. That doesn't make me dumb. I simply haven't thought about it enough.
4) I do NOT know enough about policing methods, budgets, or foundation in law, or the illegal powers sometimes wielded. I have NEVER been the victim of police abuse. Anyone can watch the video execution of George Floyd and see it. That was evil. That was clearly evil.
5) I HAVE been the victim of judiciary abuse. I know what that is, directly, in real time, personally. I can pontificate on that. I am not ignorant on that topic. Whenever I tackle a new topic, I always brag about my ignorance. It is a principle with me.

Don't know? Say so.
6) That's a beginning. Once proudly there, I commence a search for what can be known, and often that search is merely the hunt for simple logic. Here's where I begin on this one:

Do black lives matter?

Is this a true or false statement? Simple.

And of course they do.
7) We've passed the first logic gate. Here, it becomes IMMEDIATELY important to NOT assume we've made it through gates 2 or 3. As yet, we know precisely NOTHING, as in NOT ONE THING, about ends and means, or politics vs principles. Nothing. And that's okay, for now.
8) Tucker's logic on this point was flawless. If all lives - or I'd say each life - doesn't matter, than black lives cannot matter. The fact that black lives DO matter is a subset, a special case of the overarching principle:

All Lives Matter

We should all agree on this.
9) But we should go slowly. For a black life to matter, all lives must matter. If ONLY black lives matter, then it becomes a false statement. If ONLY black lives matter, then that is racism in its most rank form. Well, maybe KKK scum and White Supremacists are as rank or worse.
10) But to me, here's another, I would hope obvious, principle:

All Racism Is Bad, or...

All Racism Is Wrong.

The logic here is absolutely critical. The moment ANY life matters more than another, then...

All Lives Do Not Matter.
11) I'll go again. If all lives matter, if that is true - and it is, absolutely - then absolutely yes, black lives matter.

But, if ONLY black lives matter than all lives do NOT matter, and that become merely another form of racism. I know, I'm going super slow here.
12) That's the part that Tucker got perfectly right. One last time now...

A) All lives matter. So therefore...
B) Black lives matter. But...
C) If ONLY black lives matter, then...
D) All lives do NOT matter...equally.
13) Let's turn practical, pragmatic. First, I don't believe any patriotic black person, or any patriotic liberal or Democrat, will take the horrible racist stance that ONLY black lives matter. They are logical people. They can't watch or agree with Tucker. I get that.
14) That our friends and fellow Americans on the other side of the aisle are good people, logical and patriotic, smart and fighting for what they believe to be right, is a logically solid statement.

There are good, smart, liberal Democrats.

We get nowhere denying that.
15) Sometimes it surprises me no end how, attempting to be purely logical, we blunder into a completely solid practical action to take.

NEVER deny, under any circumstance, that black lives matter. Don't do it. You'd be wrong. They do.
16) The argument to make is simply to procure the return agreement that it is racism that denies that ANY life fails to matter. Skin color is not included as a defining parameter. That white America has failed to ensure that black American's lives matter must be admitted.
17) I can't be sure about this idea of Systemic Racism. It may well be right. There, I have to claim, if not pure ignorance, at least uncertainty. But, that racism exists cannot be denied. Not logically.

Racism exists.
18) That brings us to the police. I can't quite accept the Systemic Racism charge. No, I can't accept it all, actually. There are simply too many minority policemen for that to hold, and too highly placed within the system. Did it used to exist? Oh yeah, absolutely.
19) But, it remains possible that the Black Lives Matter movement has a righteous claim against the police, the police system in America. That really is possible. And, you hear people from many different locations on the political spectrum calling for reform.
20) Here, however, I revert to pure logic. If the police are, in any way fail to protect the lives of all citizens, and worse, if they fail to their legally empowered use of violent force, then reform is thereby necessary, having nothing to do with racism.

Killing is bad.
21) Less killing, as close to the point of zero killing as possible, is the objective. Killing is NOT the right means by which to perform the end of law, the goal of law.

Killing is bad. Less killing is better than more.

Pure, simple logic.
22) Being practical, we have to establish the difference between means and ends, and ask, what justifies what?

This is not merely a practical question of action, it is also an ethical question. What is morally right, and what is wrong?
23) Here, we blunder into one of the greatest conundrums of history. Could Truman have procured Japan's surrender without dropping two atom bombs? Could the allies have won the war for Europe without firebombing Dresden? How do you meet all out war?
24) During my youthful decades of anti-patriotism, it was Truman's bombs that were what I most viciously opposed. Right back to topic. How do you justify looting and burning as the means to effect police reform? Looting and burning is a failure of policing. Again back to logic.
25) Whatever police do, or any constabulary by any name or set of policies, they're supposed to protect both life and property. To employ illegal action in order to improve the legal performance of a constabulary is, again, a contradiction. It's not logical.
26) But, you may argue, it works...and yes it absolutely does. But, it works for what end? It cannot work for the end of improving the legal performance of the police function. You cannot use crime to improve law enforcement. Maybe we draw neared to the real end sought, now.
27) An end to policing redounds - and as Tucker said, very rapidly - to an end of law, itself. For law to be law, to be lawful, it must be enforced. If you remove the idea of enforcement from law, you destroy the law itself. A law not enforceable is not a law.
28) And that brings me to the conclusion that the attack on policing itself, under the false flag of being anti-racist, has a deeper objective, the destruction of law.

Put another way, you can determine the end by observing the means.
29) The third parameter I propose, politics OR principles, uses, perhaps, the wrong definition of politics. Politics should be a sacred term in a Constitutional Republic. We should adore politics. We don't. That older definition of politics as a good thing is long gone.
30) The very term "politics" today connotes that in politics - perhaps we should call it "mere politics" - it is always:

Party OVER Principle.

Or worse, it is:

In politics we have NO principles, at all.
31) Where Black Lives Matter is about the equality of human rights, it is both irrefutable and a good thing. Teaching racists that their racism must end cannot be a bad thing. What you can't do is loot, steal, burn, and destroy someone's property to get their attention.
32) If looting, stealing, burning, and destroying are the means, then there can be no principle of equality underlying. This would be mere politics, and self-contradictory. Crime cannot be used as a principle to improve law.
33) If crime is your means, then you have no lawful principle. You are merely a political movement with destruction of law as your end, your goal and objective. Criminals do not support police enforcement of the law.
34) So very, very sadly, that brings us to Communism. The greatest principle of Communism is that private property must be abolished. Underlying the principle against property is the deepest principle of Communism.

Law is unlawful.
35) Communism is based upon a self-contradiction. The literal end of Communism is always the same. It destroys an economy. It decimates millions of lives. It brooks no public discourse, so freedom of speech is obliterated. It runs by a dictatorship. It allows no freedom.
36) The Marxian/Engelian term for the pivot point in Communism, is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." What is a dictatorship? It is the abridgment of all law. It is the control of a nation by its dictator, whose word is law. And it is very enforceable and highly enforced.
37) There is no USSR without Siberian Gulags. There is no People Republic of China, if you release the million-odd Muslims from their prison camps. Communism always imprisons its opponents, or executes them.
38) I can so easily imagining supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. It's name is true, not false. But pragmatically, I'd need something I'm rather certain they won't give me. A full-throated disavowal of Communism. Also, of Socialism.
39) The Black Lives Matter movement that I'd support WOULD AVOW these four rights for ALL humans, of EVERY skin color or race:

1) Life
2) Liberty
3) The Pursuit of Happiness
4) Property
40) The problem I see is that Black Lives Matter is, as a political movement, a facade, using all American's natural anti-racism as a smoke screen to attack more than just policing, but the very laws by which policing is founded and must serve. I appears anti-law to me.
41) All this leads me to a new analysis. Rights are, by their very nature, lawful. Not only can they NOT exist without, or outside the law, unless the law serves and supports all rights equally without regard to race or skin color, the law itself ceases to exist. It's not lawful.
42) Here's what I mean by a new analysis. I've been spouting off about the four rights listed above for years. Look again. The four primary rights are:

1) Life
2) Liberty
3) The Pursuit of Happiness
4) Property

But where do these rights exist? Solely on the basis of law.
43) Think of the Four Rights as the pillars of a temple, one in each corner supporting the roof. They're load bearing. To do so, they must rest upon the ground, a foundation built on bedrock. Solid.

That bedrock is...

The Law. The rightful existence of law, lawfully.
44) I go again. Law is the Four Rights that it gives birth to, but also from which it derives its own existence. The Four Rights ARE the Law. The Law gives them birth. The Law IS the Four Rights, it makes them possible.
45) If you wish my support, show me your law, and show me your respect for and service to the Four Rights. No Communist or Socialist entity can show me this, as it is a contradiction of both their ends and their means.

What I support is lawful, rightfully so. Only that.
Thread ends at #45.
You can follow @ThyConsigliori.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:
Those who think consciousness raising & movement building are disconnected, or even a distraction from electoral politics have not paid attention to the history of social change.In this thread, we
Read more
The 2020s will be known as the Remote Work decadeA few predictions of what is likely to emerge[ a thread ] Third Space: Office and Working from Home will
Read more
1/29: Have you ever had a concept explained to you that helps frame complex issues you’ve been wrestling with and opens your eyes to new possibilities? A concept that I
Read more
By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.