Tuesday, October 06, 2015

"In Defense Of Looting" @ Yale

by JASmius

Looks like the #BlackLivesMatter curriculum at Yale is cancerously - and ludicrously - expanding:

That's no joke, by the way.  They're deadly serious.  At a formerly elite Ivy League university where a single year costs over $63,000, looting and rioting is being defended and promulgated as justified and justifiable and just plain "just" - and moral and righteous - as long as the "right" people are doing the looting and rioting and the "right" people are the targets of this orgy of violence, larceny, and mayhem:

The mystifying ideological claim that looting is violent and non-political is one that has been carefully produced by the ruling class because it is precisely the violent maintenance of property which is both the basis and end of their power. Looting is extremely dangerous to the rich (and most white people) because it reveals, with an immediacy that has to be moralized away, that the idea of private property is just that: an idea, a tenuous and contingent structure of consent, backed up by the lethal force of the state. When rioters take territory and loot, they are revealing precisely how, in a space without cops, property relations can be destroyed and things can be had for free. [emphases added]

Stolen, in other words, with the mass thefts justified on racial grounds.

On a less abstract level there is a practical and tactical benefit to looting. Whenever people worry about looting, there is an implicit sense that the looter must necessarily be acting selfishly, “opportunistically,” and in excess. But why is it bad to grab an opportunity to improve well-being, to make life better, easier, or more comfortable? [emphasis added]

Um, because it's (1) morally wrong and (2) against the law?  Oh, right, I forgot, that's only as long as you're of the "wrong" tribe.  Let's let roving bands of whites plunder black neighborhoods and see how quickly this tune changes.  Actually, we don't have to let any such thing happen; the Black Klan already refer to them as "cops".  And "whites" who couldn't possibly have freely earned their possessions, but by definition have somehow "taken" them from the "poor," a blitheringly stupid assertion so counterintuitive as to only be worthy of being spewed at a formerly elite school of higher learning.  But it does justify looting and rioting and mayhem, though.

Or, as Hannah Black put it on Twitter: “Cops exist so people can’t loot i.e. have nice things for free so idk why it’s so confusing that people loot when they protest against cops” [sic]. Only if you believe that having nice things for free is amoral, if you believe, in short, that the current (white-supremacist, settler-colonialist) regime of property is just, can you believe that looting is amoral in itself.

The "right" tribe has the comprehensive right to engage in domestic terrorism, and the "wrong" tribe has an obligation to dociley allow itself to be raped and plundered.  Yep, THAT's the path to a just, free, and domestically tranquil society.

And remember, Yale parents, this is the communist propagandizing of your children for which you are harvesting your own organs to pay.

You could even call it rioting and looting by other means.

No comments: