It Figures …

… another “mass shooting” and the mainstream media cannot wait to blame “the far right.”

First, condolences to the families of the deceased. Yes, we send our thoughts and prayers to and for the victims and their families.

While we’re appalled by such events, it’s disgusting to see the media wasting no time in blaming “the far right,” to promote their political agenda. One story, front and center on the Yahoo! home page, is entitled:

Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting Suspect Posted About Far-Right Book Moments Before Shooting

Far right? Hardly.

The alleged, now-deceased perpetrator, Santino William Legan, seemingly a 19-year-old Italian/Iranian-American environmentalist, posted on Instagram

a picture with a caption that told followers to read a 19th-century, proto-fascist book. The book … is full of anti-Semitic, sexist and white supremacist ideology.

Recall that fascism derives from Nazism and that Hitler and his followers were socialists. The name Nazi derives from the party of Hitler and his supporters: The National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

Workers’ party? When you hear that phrase, what do you think of?

At best, labor unions. At worst, communism. Neither is far right.

Despite that the left, the far left, progressives, and their toadies in the media want very much to associate Hitler, Nazism, and Fascism with the right in this country, the fact remains that all these ideologies have more in common with communism, socialism, and progressivism than with right-leaning ideologies like conservatism or libertarianism.

Notably, the story featured at Yahoo! does not name the book recommended by the alleged shooter, something pointed out in comments by several individuals, one of whom specifically stated that he’d like the name so that he can determine for himself whether or not the book is truly “far right.”

Of course, today’s mainstream media is not in the business of supplying readers with information so they can make up their own minds. Rather, they prefer to brainwash the masses with their (and the Democrat Party’s) progressive propaganda.

As it turns out, other stories have noted the name of the book: Might is Right. According to Wikipedia, this book is

by pseudonymous author Ragnar Redbeard. First published in 1890, it heavily advocates egoist anarchism, amorality, consequentialism and psychological hedonism. In Might Is Right, Redbeard rejects conventional ideas of human and natural rights and argues that only strength or physical might can establish moral right (à la Callicles or Thrasymachus).

The book also attacks Christianity and Democracy. Friedrich Nietzsche‘s theories of master–slave morality and herd mentality serve as a clear inspiration for Redbeard’s book written contemporaneously. …

The author sums up his work as follows:

“This book is a reasoned negation of the Ten Commandments–the Golden Rule–the Sermon on the Mount–Republican Principles–Christian Principles–and “Principles” in general. It proclaims upon scientific evolutionary grounds, the unlimited absolutism of Might, and asserts that cut-and-dried moral codes are crude and immoral inventions, promotive of vice and vassalage.”

Nietzsche was, of course, a nihilist. As such, the author so admired by the alleged shooter would seem to have more in common with antifa, the far left. 

The author attacked Christianity, democracy, and republicanism. He rejected human rights and natural rights, the very foundation of our Declaration of Independence.

The author also opposed moral codes, including the Ten Commandments, and the  Golden Rule!

He promoted anarchism, amorality, and “consequentialism,” which holds that

the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequence, not by whether it follows a set of written edicts or laws. 

Consider what Wikipedia says about antifa, without doubt a far-left movement, which 

is composed of left-wing, autonomous, militant anti-fascist [or so they claim] groups and individuals in the United States. The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action, with conflicts occurring both online and in real life. They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far right.

Activists involved in the movement tend to be anti-capitalists and subscribe to a range of ideologies, typically on the left. They include anarchists, socialists and communists along with some liberals and social democrats.

Antifa activists believe that their cause is right and so, because they’re right, it’s alright to, by any means necessary, including violence, violate the human, constitutional, and civil rights of those with whom they disagree:

The idea of [violent] direct action is central to the antifa movement. Antifa organizer Scott Crow told an interviewer: 

“The idea in Antifa is that we go where they [right-wingers] go. That hate speech is not free speech. That if you are endangering people with what you say and the actions that are behind them, then you do not have the right to do that. And so we go to cause conflict, to shut them down where they are, because we don’t believe that Nazis or fascists of any stripe should have a mouthpiece.”

What a perfect example of consequentialism.

Antifa activists believe (or claim that they believe) that their cause is right and so what others, including law enforcement, would label as illegal or immoral acts (violence, vandalism, doxxing, etc.) are in actuality moral acts because the ends justify their means.

Of course, antifa activists reserve for themselves the right to decide which “free speech” is actually “hate speech.” They also reserve the right to declare people with whom they disagree as beings ineligible for constitutional rights, human rights, or natural rights.

So who is denying the humanity of whom?

Who has more in common with the ideology professed in the book Might is Right?

The far left. 

That’s who.

#####