Occupy LA performs riot theater

Michael Blaze is a black artist and art entrepreneur who is sufficiently white, middle class, and upwardly mobile that if he shot a black criminal, would promptly be declared white by Mainstream Media. He is one of those blacks that whiter people like to associate with to prove they are not prejudiced without risking getting mugged, and, like those whiter people, is a good progressive.

He gives us an on the spot report of the occupy riot against LA Art Walk, in which he tells us that if it was black criminals rioting the police response would be very different, by which he presumably means a lot more effective. At 4:10 into the video he tells us

“people are throwing cans, bottles … agitators. There are maybe fifty or a hundred police, and they are taking no action.”

A few cops get hurt by the Occupy LA mob, and a few of the Occupy LA mob get hurt by the cops, but in fact, it is cops and occupiers working together to disrupt LA Art Walk. The conflict between cops and occupiers is staged, because if it was real, the hundred cops would have arrested the thirty agitators one minute into the confrontation. Meanwhile the harassment and disruption of Art Walk and the thousands of people showing up at Art Walk to have a good time is real. Two hundred cops and thirty agitators gave everyone a bad time.

Michael Blaze shows his good progressive credentials by protesting at police arresting people for chalking, and tells us how bad the LA PD are for provoking this confrontation, but then at 7:30 in the video

“this guy jumped up on the police and hit them … still no arrests. Right now the police are not in control.”

So people are arrested for chalking, for which they will probably get very small fine, but so far in the riot not arrested for assault, vandalism, and obstructing the roads.

At 8:50 in the video:

“I cannot believe they are not being arrested. People are literally pushing on the police, and the police are restraining themselves. … This is out of control. Something needs to happen”

Of course the police are in control, in that if their officers did not want a riot, they would just beat the stuffing out of the most riotous agitator, and then the second most riotous agitator, and then when they looked for the third most riotous agitator, he would be nowhere to be found. If they did not want a riot, they would arrest people for assault, rather than chalking.

So, why Art Walk, an event that is wall to wall with good progressives and whiter people? Why are they not attacking a gun show, or some conference sponsored by the Koch brothers?

(Whiter people is an epithet used by white people for other white people who ape the purported views and tastes of our rulers, the regnant left, with excessive enthusiasm and thoroughness. Recall me ridiculing Charles Murray for eating barra in Washington, and eating spaghetti with homeopathic quantities of truffle in it.)

Well the answer is, that they tried such targets, and such targets turned out to be tough. The original plan was to “Occupy Wall Street”. They attempted to occupy various symbols of capitalism, and promptly got thumped. So they went looking for softer targets – which softer targets invariably turn out to be fellow progressives, notably the most left wing city administration in the US, Oakland City. While it seems to require hundreds of cops to handle fifty Occupiers, it only takes three rentacops or half a dozen conservatives to handle any number of occuppiers. They just take out whichever would be occupier is in front, and when they look around for the next guy in front, no one is in front. Progressives lack cohesion. They have no asabiyyah. Possibly this is a side effect of the progressive strategy of far alliance against near.

If it gets to civil war, progressives will fall like sand before a hose.

8 Responses to “Occupy LA performs riot theater”

  1. Anonymous says:

    If it gets to civil war, progressives will fall like sand before a hose.

    Right now, they have the US military, the UN, a ridiculous amount of paramilitary federal “agents” and militar-ized local cops. Even if they lose all that, they have all the money, they can hire plenty of foreign mercenaries.

    • jim says:

      As long as Uncle Sam’s no limit credit card holds up, they can buy enough votes, and pay the army. Regimes tend to fall when they run out of money and hyperinflation hits. At which point they may well decide to prioritize paying the troops over paying off the voters, and stop pretending to be democratic.

      If they walk that path, as well they may, the military, not they, will have the power.

      In the French revolution, financial collapse and excessive money printing discredited the new regime, resulting in Royalist revolt by the masses. The government turned to the army, and the army obeyed, with a certain officer called Napoleon using heavy weapons against french subjects that the Royal army had been reluctant to use.

      Whereupon like Publius Sulpicius Rufus, the Abbé Sieyès, and Salvador Allende, they will attempt to remake the military in their own image, which will likely result in a Sulla, a Napoleon, or a Pinochet.

      For this reason, they are likely to be reluctant to turn to the military until rather late in the day, and will, like Rufus and Allende, at first attempt to rely on their supposed support from the mob. When they run out of money, their ideology tells them to stop paying soldiers and continue paying bums.

  2. elf says:

    Si est bellum academaie et dicit ignis.

    • jim says:

      Once I knew a little latin, but now I do not. I read that, in my rusty pig latin, as “If war in the universities , they will burn”, or “if academic warfare, also fire”

  3. Bill says:

    If it gets to civil war, progressives will fall like sand before a hose.

    This theory has been tested many times. The Cavaliers, the Vendeeans, the American South, Austria-Hungary, Bull Connor, the Whites, the Boers, and numerous others have lots to tell you about the sand-hose theory. Progressives, once aroused, are vicious, psychopathic, and thoroughly frightening fighters. The New Model Army is no bullshit. We can hope they fall apart from their internal contradictions or that they have a run of completely incompetent leaders, but they are seriously scary people.

    Franco beat them at least temporarily. Pinochet beat them at least temporarily. But they did not hold to the sand-hose theory. They held to the “the only good progressive is one who’s dead” theory. In both cases, these guys could have lost and would have lost if they did not have a clear idea of how extremely dangerous their opponents were.

    The mistake here is to equate progressives so stupid that they can’t find work in the Establishment to all progressives.

    • jim says:

      This theory has been tested many times. The Cavaliers, the Vendeeans, the American South, Austria-Hungary, Bull Connor, the Whites, the Boers, and numerous others have lots to tell you about the sand-hose theory. Progressives, once aroused, are vicious, psychopathic, and thoroughly frightening fighters. The New Model Army is no bullshit.

      The New Model Army was 100% white, male, and officially heterosexual, the penalty for sodomy being execution. It was led by Cromwell, whose kingly character gave it cohesion.

      The Occupation movement is now entirely focused on shaking down their fellow leftists for tribute – attacking the LA Art Walk in LA and Trinity Church in New York City.

      The New Model army was based on “Godly Men”. When it was commanded by Lambert in replacement for Cromwell it was similarly based on the same Puritan Godliness, and for the most part the same men, and the same loudly proclaimed godly cause, and it collapsed like a string of sand before Monck’s monarchic presbyterians, Lambert suddenly finding himself all alone as his men vanished, which collapse led to the Restoration. Carlyle attributes the success of the New Model Army not to the New Model, not to being composed of Godly men frequently of low birth, but to being led by Cromwell, to Cromwell’s Kingly character.

      Franco beat them at least temporarily. Pinochet beat them at least temporarily. But they did not hold to the sand-hose theory. They held to the “the only good progressive is one who’s dead” theory.

      Not so. In view of what followed, probably would have been wise to believe that the only progressive was a good progressive, but what they in fact believed was that the only good commie is a dead commie.

      Pinochet was himself a progressive. He was appointed by Salvador Allende who hoped to rule through the army when it became apparent Allende could no longer rule through free elections, nor by the power of the mob. Six hours before the coup, the rebel officers informed Pinochet that the coup was rolling. They gave Pinochet a piece of paper to sign ordering the army to support the coup, and told him that if he failed to sign it, this would “undermine the unity and discipline of the armed forces”, which sounds to me to mean “sign or die”. Pinochet signed, then took off. Neither side could find him or contact him. They found him after the coup with his grandchildren and hauled him off to the bloodstained and still smoking presidential palace. He was against the coup before he was in favor of it, and in favor of it before he was against it.

      The coup in Chile was made by junior officers. The backbone of the army was its junior officers, and your army is in a bad way when its backbone is the junior officers..

      Chances are that if the balloon goes up around 2026 or so, the top officer in the Pentagon will be a male to female mestizo transexual claiming to be a lesbian, born male in Mexico.

      Cromwell led his troops personally from the front, which suggests to me that had he led from the rear, they would have run away.

      The mistake here is to equate progressives so stupid that they can’t find work in the Establishment to all progressives.

      A lot of the rank and file of the occupy movement are the most ludicrous homeless losers, and cast into sharp relief the fact that not everyone who does a virtue course in university is guaranteed a job enforcing virtue. The leadership, however, at least the people who got arrested, seem to be mostly pulling down about a million dollars a year each in the virtue industry to judge by their stately homes. Someone, I cannot recall the link, went through the bail records, and then used google earth to find pictures of their mansions. Of course they could be loser kids living at home with rich parents – I did not check their ages, but my impression is that the leadership and a large proportion of the arrestees are older.

  4. [...] – We need a word to describe someone who is a member of a minority group but who is sufficiently white that he would be considered white if he committed violence against a really black…. [...]

Leave a Reply