Most human beings were disgusted by the murder of Aaron “Jay” Danielson, the member of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer, in Portland. University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis is not among them. Loomis defended the killing by Michael Reinoehl, an Antifa member who appears to have stalked Danielson before gunning him down. Loomis insisted that any problem in gunning down right-wing counterprotesters was tactical not moral.
I testified in the Senate about the erosion of free speech and rise of violence on our campuses and in our streets. Antifa and related groups have succeeded in advancing anti-free-speech agendas as students and faculty justify attacks on those with opposing views. Loomis has long espoused extremist views and violent language, including calling for NRA executive Wayne LaPierre’s “head on a stick.”
In his latest post, Loomis has been criticized for appearing to justify the murdering of those who hold opposing views. He adopts the rhetoric used by Antifa extremists in labeling those on the other side of protests as “fascists” and then justifies any means to resist them, including apparently murder. While Loomis does not call it murder, he dismisses the killing because it involved someone he classified as a “fascist.”
In his blog post titled “Why was Michael Reinoehl killed?,” Loomis is outraged not by Reinoehl killing Danielson but the fact that police killed Reinoehl. (Police say that Reinoehl pulled a gun when they were trying to arrest him). In a quote attributed to him, Loomis insisted that it was murder:
“Michael Reinoehl is the guy who killed the fascist in Portland last week. He admitted it and said he was scared the cops would kill him. Well, now the cops have killed him. I am extremely anti-conspiracy theory. But it’s not a conspiracy theory at this point in time to wonder if the cops simply murdered him. The police is [sic] shot through with fascists from stem to stern. They were openly working with the fascists in Portland, as they were in Kenosha which led to dead protestors.”
Loomis seems more concerned that he might be espousing a “conspiracy theory” than a justification for murder. In responding to a comment that “Erik, he shot and killed a guy,” Loomis responded “He killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective.” He then added that “tactically, that’s a different story. But you could say the same thing about John Brown.”
So it is merely a tactical not a moral question to stalk and murder someone with opposing views?
Loomis has repeatedly referenced John Brown. Brown of course was not just responsible for the raid on Harper’s Ferry but the Pottawatomie massacre that helped triggered the period called “Bleeding Kansas” and involved the hacking to death of five unarmed settlers viewed as pro-slavery.
The most Loomis conceded is that “the problem with violence is that it usually, though not always, is a bad idea. That I agree with.” Yet, he then added
“Yes, sometimes violence is necessary, say to avoid greater physical harm, i.e. self-defense, or to defeat a literal army of fascists who are trying to kill people. But, ideologically, I think the idea that violence is good if it’s against our political enemies is a core part of fascism, and so the ideological opposition to that idea should be its opposite – that violence as a general rule is bad, unless the specific context of that situation requires a violent response.”
The specific context in Portland is that Danielson went with a right-wing group to advocate for his own views, just as protesters from Black Lives Matter have been doing. He was stalked and murdered, which Loomis finds perfectly moral.
Loomis’ rhetoric and views are strikingly similar to those in the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. As I stated in my Senate testimony, Antifa bears strong resemblance to groups that emerged during earlier periods of attacks on free speech. Simply replacing anti-communism with anti-fascism does not materially change the same anti-free speech purpose of these movements. The purpose of governmental or non-government threats are the same in seeking to not only silence opponents, but to deter others from joining them. The absolutism of their goals is used to justify any means to achieve them. Specifically, Antifa’s categorical rejection of opposing views as worthy of protection is strikingly similar to the view of anti-Communists during the Red Scare. Antifa followers refuse to recognize the views of opponents as legitimate or “a difference of opinion.” Their goal is not co-existence but, as stated in the Antifa Handbook, “to end their politics.” Bray and other academics are liberating students from the confines of what they deem the false “allegiance to liberal democracy.” Once freed of the values of free speech and democratic values, violence becomes merely politics by other means. It is the very mindset that was once used against communists and Marxists in the 1950s.
What is so striking is how Danielson is no longer treated as a human being with family or even individual worth. Loomis seems to revel in the notion that such lives are now inconsequential and can be taken for purely tactical reason. It is the liberating element of extremism. Once uncoupled from the confines of morality, Loomis and others can assume a license for violence, even murder, to advance their agenda.
For an academic to espouse such hateful and violent views is particularly distressing. There are likely many conservatives among the student body at Rhode Island who Loomis would also declare “fascists.” Their lives would be equally fungible and worthless under this view. It is often hard to advocate for the free speech rights of people like Loomis when he justifies not just the silencing but the actual killing of those with opposing views. However, Loomis is the price of free speech.
Notably, however, few of his colleagues have come forward to denounce his statements. Indeed, when the University President last criticized Loomis’ violence rhetoric, he was attacked by other faculty for siding with the critics of Loomis. We have seen universities denounce academics who have espoused opposing views, but this academic can reportedly defend murder without widespread and immediate condemnation from his colleagues. Indeed, academics have been sacked for declaring “All Lives Matter” but Loomis does not even generate immediate condemnation for saying that this life does not matter if actually terminated in the name of the greater good. This was clearly made in his personal not academic capacity. Yet, that does not mean that other academics cannot stand against such hateful, violent views.
Update: As noted by a couple of our commenters, Professor Loomis has responded:
Koch Brothers hack
thinks I support murder. Meanwhile, his preferred policies kill people around the world every day. But hey, I’m not bought and sold by capitalists. Wonder what it feels like to be a disgusting human being.
I am not sure where the reference to the Koch Brothers comes from since I have never had any connection to them (and criticized them in the past), but Loomis continues his signature style of hurling insults rather than addressing the underlying issues addressed in the blog.
In all the endlessly tiresome back-and-forth screeching about race relations in this country, never once have I heard anyone beyond an anonymous tweeter here or there suggest the main problem is that we’ve been far too nice to black people.
Despite the fact that black-on-white violence far outstrips the inverse, and despite the fact that American culture has performed nonstop analingus on blacks and nonstop defamation of whites for a couple generations now, and despite the fact that it’s ludicrous to assert that modern blacks are being economically exploited in any possible way since blacks in the aggregate take far more from the “government” (i.e., white taxpayers) in assistance than they contribute in taxes, the establishment left and right both seem to agree that anti-black “racism” is a real problem.
Multiple speakers at the COVID Skype show that was the Republican National Convention last week bent over and grabbed their ankles wishing warm feelings for Jacob Blake, the black male from Kenosha with a felony warrant for rape who was filmed on camera fighting with white cops before they wound up shooting him after screaming at him to put down his knife. But there wasn’t a word of sympathy for Kyle Rittenhouse, the white Trump supporter who shot three non-blacks in Kenosha last week as they were attacking him with fists, a skateboard, and a handgun.
Republicans get called Nazis no matter how far they bend over, and still they try to appease the same malicious actors who call them Nazis. You know what they say about those who don’t learn from history.
If the establishment left and right disagree on anything, it’s whether or not anti-white rhetoric and anti-white violence are problems. But both groups openly pander to blacks as a racial group, while neither dares to openly appeal to whites. The Republicans simply never say anything about whites, while the Democrats openly demean whites.
Despite what the narrative-sculptors would have you believe, I’ve never had a problem being nice to black people. And in most cases, black people don’t have a problem being nice to me. Having gotten that out of the way, what I’m about to say will be scorned by people on both ends of this imaginary political spectrum for different reasons, and I suppose it won’t help to explain that I’m saying this not to win good-guy points with anyone—because, you blinkered idiot, your misguided moral approval means nothing to me—but because it’s been my genuine experience: On an individual basis, I really, really like black people. Ever since I first started encountering them at around age eight, they’ve been some of the funniest and most charming people I’ve ever known.
There have, of course, been exceptions—I’ve been robbed and punched by black people, although I’ve never robbed or punched one myself. And I know multiple white people who’ve suffered violence, rape, and murder at the hands of blacks, whereas I’ve never personally known a white person who’s done the inverse.
But that’s not what the narrative-sculptors would have you believe, is it?
“When you concede to an infant’s tantrums, does their behavior improve?”
Despite all of the evidence, they keep peddling this antiquated notion that America is such a cesspit of anti-black hatred and violence that blacks are scared of even walking outside these days. Even basketball superstar LeBron James and his net worth of nearly a half-billion dollars recently asserted as much.
Coulda fooled me! Blacks don’t seem to have the slightest problem appearing in public and bullying and hitting and demeaning every white person within spitting distance.
No, it’s whites who are afraid. Deathly afraid.
Back when whites actually had a positive collective identity, they weren’t nearly as afraid. In fact, it was the blacks who were afraid. And that was a bad thing—if you were black. If you were white, one of the perks that you didn’t have to live in constant fear of being physically attacked for saying the wrong thing.
But as modern whites, we’re lectured that it’s a good thing to live in constant fear. We’re told it’s what we deserve for all that we’ve done to blacks.
Sorry, but what have I ever done to blacks except being nice to them?
So I have to ask ye white Americans: How has being nice to black people been workin’ out for ya?
Have you noticed that the nicer we are to blacks, the angrier they act toward us? Have you noticed that this phenomenon acts with almost mathematical precision? Have you pondered that perhaps they don’t interpret our kindness as kindness, but rather as weakness?
I read a long time ago that Southerners hate the idea of blacks as a group but are nice to them individually, whereas Northerners love the idea of blacks as an abstract concept but treat them rottenly on an individual basis. While that’s a gross overgeneralization and impossible to quantify, it’s appearing more and more that in this equation, I would qualify as a honorary Southerner.
Back when you could get your ass kicked by white people for saying nice things about black people, I was that guy.
Now, when you can get your life destroyed for saying nice things about white people, I’m still that guy.
I haven’t changed at all. All that “progress” really means is that society has shifted its poles and redefined the good guys and the bad guys.
Except for the times when I was punched and robbed by individual blacks, my experiences with them have been overwhelmingly positive. So, yes, it can be said that I have very high regard for most of them as individuals.
But holy shit, they are a complete mess as a group. Where on Earth does a large presence of blacks actually improve the per-capita income and life expectancy? Where is there a majority-black country on Earth where blacks enjoy a higher standard of living and live longer than they do in this allegedly white-supremacist hellhole called the USA? I’ve been asking that last question for a quarter-century and have never received an answer. I’ve been called plenty of names for asking the question, but after about the hundredth time, that only seems like a dishonest way of avoiding the question altogether.
It’s stupid to be nice to someone who has no intention of being nice to you.
Even though White Fragility is one of the best-selling books of recent years, what we’re actually dealing with is black fragility, because if you dare to even utter one negative thing about them, the entire nation might burn.
It’s not a healthy world where you’re constantly afraid of speaking the truth.
It’s as if all of white America is a battered wife desperately scrambling not to make her husband angry again. Sounds like we’re in an abusive relationship with blacks—so deeply abusive, we’re being gaslit as the abusers and most of us seem to believe it. It’s like, wow, honey, you just made your abusive husband breakfast in bed, but he slapped you harder than ever. The nicer we get, the more racist they say we are, and the meaner they get. And no one sees a connection to any of this?
If people refrain from ever thinking or saying anything negative about black people again, do you think this current situation will resolve itself, or will it get a lot worse? I recently conducted a poll on this very question, and 93.8% of the 499 respondents said things will only get worse.
When you concede to an infant’s tantrums, does their behavior improve?
Mind you, I don’t like white people any more than I like black people. In a lot of ways, I respect modern whites far less than I respect modern blacks. I’ll respect anyone who acts in self-interest far more than I’ll respect any masochist.
But we currently occupy a culture where being perceived as a “racist” justifies your murder. So would you rather be dead, or would you rather be called a racist and stay alive to fight back? Sooner than you think, you will be forced to answer that question.
I choose to continue being nice to blacks as individuals, but when it comes to blacks as a group, I am now highly suspicious of both their capabilities and their intentions toward me and other whites.
Let’s put it this way: I love my dog, and he has a great personality, but I wouldn’t let him drive my truck. Despite how likeable he is, I’d only be inviting disaster.
antonio
right on antonio
the silver lining is, the Left wants everyone to think in groups
OK, i got it! We can do that. They might not like where it leads.
It has been pushed to the point that many agree with you Antonio. They want tribalism; perhaps they will get it.
To be less ambiguous, I agree with you. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out so well.
left wing news media: ““I don’t think any of us came here for a lecture about our questioning.”
Rick Grennell: “people aren’t listening to you anymore.”
Great video.
“I don’t know if you could find it on a map, but this is atrocious, I have to tell you guys. You might be too young to understand what this issue is about; maybe the older journalists should step up and say this is a big deal. This is a big issue.”
“I’m astounded at what happens in Washington, DC, and especially in this room. I got to tell you, get substantive, maybe it’s too complicated of an issue for you all.”
Peter Alexander from NBC tried to rebut Grenell wanting to redirect back to the relevant topic where he was poised to speak about:
“Respectfully, this is the first time we’ve had the opportunity to speak with these individuals. So there’s a lot of questions to address.”
Yet, Grenell fired back at Alexander:
“Okay, but today is about Kosovo and Serbia. So, let’s take some time to talk about this 21-year issue, Peter. I mean – 21 years and we’re getting the same questions that are all politics.
“You guys don’t understand what’s happening outside of Washington, DC. People aren’t listening to you anymore. It’s really a crisis in journalism, and I think it’s because people are too young to understand issues like Kosovo and Serbia.”
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/u-s-special-envoy-for-kosovo-puts-journalists-in-their-place/
Grenell and Trump huge achievements in dipomacy
TRUMP NOMINATED FOR NOBEL PRIZE
That s^&t is funny.
‘“I’m not a big Trump supporter,” said the Norwegian parliamentarian who nominated Trump for the Nobel Prize. But facts are facts, he says. “The people who have received the Peace Prize in recent years have done much less than Donald Trump. For example, Barack Obama did nothing.”
Now THAT is funny. Obama did nothing, and got the prize, hahahaha, the whole world is laughing. Actually it is not funny at all. It is disgusting.
Apparently the tweets are trending, “unlike Obama” Trump actually has done something for peace.
Oh well, Obama got the affirmative action peace prize– no merit or effort needed.
‘Trump banned Critical Race Theory, told off the Military Industrial Complex, announced he’s bringing the troops home, got nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and it’s only Wednesday morning.’ @JackPosobiec
Mt. Rushmore!
Norwegian Parliament member Christian Tybring-Gjedde nominated the president, citing efforts to resolve world conflict. He said: “Trump has broken a 39-year-old streak of American Presidents either starting a war or bringing the United States an international armed conflict.”
‘Hooray for the Peace deal between Israel and UAE! Wait…what? Trump negotiated it? I meant Boooo! I hate peace, peace is bad! Us dems have always been against peace deals right? Yeah that’s the ticket.’ -Sean Ono Lennon
“So we can write our stories accurately…” There is no chance that will happen. Grenell is right, nobody is listening to these corrupt, ignorant and often stupid employees of media machines.
Justice Dept. Intervenes to Help Trump in E. Jean Carroll Defamation Lawsuit
Government lawyers made the unusual move of seeking to take over President Trump’s defense in a suit brought by Ms. Carroll, who has accused Mr. Trump of raping her in the 1990s.
C’mon Turley, get off of your one trick pony and tackle something far more important. This is a Putin move. This is far more dangerous.
Trump is nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize today. The New York Post sends out a ‘news alert’ email. Crickets from The New York Times alerts. Crickets from the Washington Post news alerts.
Twitter’s Newsflash says this: “Norwegian parliamentarian nominates Donald Trump for 2021 Nobel Peace Prize, Fox News reports.”
Catch that? They add, “Fox News reports”…..So President Trump is nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and it is not considered newsworthy by any other “news” publication?
Twitter let that news blurb trend for a flash before it disappeared and #TrumpIsARapist began trending in the ‘news’ section.
Yep, they keep telling us there is no media bias, is there? No wonder people are so misinformed and disinformed and ill-informed. Because they are being manipulated by the Fake News Media which is indeed the enemy of the people. Trump is 100% correct. Alex Jones is 100% correct as well. Info War is ongoing.
Where is the “news” about Tara Reade’s accusations – far more credible accusations of rape and assault by Joe Biden when he was her boss? Crickets. Not “news” worthy. Spare us your outrage.
Oh but let’s talk about Putin and “foreign interference” in our elections? All the interference, manipulation and lies are right here in the USA’s very own fake news corrupt media that keeps telling us to ‘look over there!’ It’s Russia Russia Russia…again! Oh shut up, Rachel Madcow and friends –no one is listening to you any longer.
Clearly, you’re listening.
Their ratings don’t reflect that.
Every “news alert” email from all the major news media today (NYT, WaPo, Axios, etc) was negative news for Trump. Not one “news alert” email about Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize or withdrawing troops from overseas aside from NY Post and Fox News.
The “good news” of Trump being nominated, etc, had to be blunted by the “news” drop of the Woodward political hit job and whatever ‘whistleblower’ hit jobs they have planned to “drop” from now through the election, ensuring as much as they can that essentially no major media but Fox will be talking about any Trump favorable news.
Of course ‘negative news’ for Trump will drop nonstop, while negative and unfavorable news for Biden/Democrats is sat on and suppressed by the biased and corrupt fake news media –which is why half the electorate is intentionally dis-informed and uninformed and being lied to. That is the media game. That is called “election interference” right here at home in the good ole USA, forget about Russia.
And so it will go on….and on….and on….until Trump leaves office in 2028.
Lawfare against a sitting president is dangerous
DOJ is taking action to protect the Office of POTUS not Trump per se
Bahahahahahahahahahaha!!
There is no evidence that the man killed in Portland was starkes and we will never know because the man who allegedly shot him was killed by police. Interesting.
The term ‘no evidence’ does not mean what you fancy it means. And Mr. Danielson’s murderer admitted it in an online interview.
Oh, look, how cute. Our resident Curmudgeon is now going by Art Deco, thinking no one will recognize her signature 8th grade vocabulary. Rejected old queens are like that. heaven help you if that queen is a bitter bottom
Turley says “Loomis insisted that [the killing of Reinoehl] was murder.”
But Turley also seems quite comfortable calling the Reinoehl’s killing of Danielson “murder.”
Examples of Turley doing this:
* “murder of right-wing protester”
* “the murder of Aaron “Jay” Danielson”
* “Loomis justifies the murdering of those who hold opposing views”
* “Loomis seems more concerned that he might be espousing a ‘conspiracy theory’ than a justification for murder.”
* “So it is merely a tactical not a moral question to stalk and murder someone with opposing views?”
* “[Danielson] was stalked and murdered.”
* “this academic [Loomis] can reportedly defend murder”
If Reinoehl were still alive, would Turley refer to Reinoehl as a murderer? Or would Turley recognize that he should instead say “accused murderer,” as Reinoehl hadn’t been convicted?
In an interview the day he was killed, “Reinoehl said he’s spoken to attorneys who say he’s ‘got a viable case for self-defense and protection because there’s a definite threat to my life.’” (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v7g8vb/man-linked-to-killing-at-a-portland-protest-says-he-acted-in-self-defense) I don’t know whether Reinoehl was acting in self-defense or was a murderer. Turley doesn’t either. And not only is Turley a lawyer, he’s a defense lawyer and a law professor, so it’s odd that he’s so quick to claim “murder.”
I wonder whether Loomis have a valid case of defamation against Turley, given that Loomis doesn’t seem to have referred to Reinoehl as a murderer and that Reinoehl wasn’t convicted of murder. This seems awfully sloppy on the part of a law professor.
Reinhohl in his interview with Vice was trying to build the narrative for his defense. He supposedly was threatened and he had a black friend. None of that shows up in the video. We see Reinhohl laying in wait, hand on his gun, then coming out and shooting. Then running away.
Anon– Well said. In the interview Reinhohl was saying the magic words [thaumaturigic words] to craft a legal defense. Several people recognized them at once. The video caught him lurking in ambush out of sight of his premeditated victim. He could have avoided his victim altogether. He chose to murder instead.
There are surveillance photos of Reinoehl stalking his prey.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/09/arrest-warrant-against-michael-reinoehl-for-2nd-degree-murder-unlawful-use-of-a-firearm-unsealed.html
He also stalked his kids, beat the sheet out of them, stole from his family and his sister said his death was for the best.
But yes, let’s talk about Biden’s terrific plan to lead the nation …..from the Basement.
At least Kamala will bail him out with her communist friends funds who free ANTIFA BLM anarchists
‘CHILLING: Kamala rejoicing that the violent BLM protests will continue even AFTER the election. How would she know? Because her radical younger sister has long been an organizer of anti-cop protests’ @paulsperry
I have no problem calling Reinoehl an accused murderer.
I’m simply noting that Reinoehl wasn’t convicted of murder, and Turley is a law prof. and seems to be defaming Loomis by claiming things like “Loomis justifies the murdering of those who hold opposing views.” It’s astoundingly sloppy for a law prof. to word it that way.
Only one with your mincing, OCD, secretarial instincts could have crafted that comment, Commit.
I think with your skills you could be a useful researcher but as a lawyer even your own client would want to gut you in front of the jury. In fact some of the jurors would probably help.
Your frequent choice to focus on me — rather than the subject — and your insults are evidence that you have weak arguments, Young.
With Kyle Rittenhouse, you say “Commit, a person is Presumed Innocent until proven guilty,” but with Reinhohl, you say “He chose to murder.” Your double standards are clear.
Commit, your feeble defense of an admitted murderer is right up there with Defund the Police on the dumber than dirt scale.
Who is the admitted murderer?
You must have missed Reinoehl’s video for Vice. He admitted and tried to excuse the killing.
Young, Rittenhouse also admitted on tape “I just killed somebody.”
No doubt you’ll now start to call Rittenhouse a murderer too. /s
It works this way OCD Secretary. Two people say on video that they killed someone.
Other video shows the first shooter fleeing for his life [retreating we say] and being overtaken by three thugs armed with various weapons, one of them a gun, and then he defends himself by shooting and walks to the police and hands over his gun and offers to submit. NOT a murderer.
The second shooter has an opportunity to leave [retreating we say but he had no threat to retreat from] but instead stands in wait, concealed in an alley with his hand on his gun. Then he kills someone whose hat offended him. He flees to another state and when the US Marshals [God bless them] catch up with him he grabs a rifle. SUM: Laying in wait, unsuspecting victim, no threat to him, flees the state, resisting arresting with a weapon. YES it is murder.
Let your OCD chew on that for awhile.
Every time you insult me, you further demonstrate your weakness, Young. Do you mistakenly believe that it shows strength? Are you unable to control yourself?
Both Rittenhouse and Reinoehl fled the state after the shootings. Didn’t you know?
“Rittenhouse walks to the police and hands over his gun”
The police took possession of two Smith and Wesson M&P15 rifles in Antioch, IL, where he fled.
“NOT a murderer.”
That’s up to a jury to determine.
“YES it is murder.”
That, too, would have been for a jury to determine if he hadn’t been killed by police.
It’s unfortunate that the lawyers who comment here aren’t more committed to the ABA’s Professional Rules of Conduct.
OCD Secretary” ““YES it is murder. That, too, would have been for a jury to determine if he hadn’t been killed by police.”
For someone who minces words as often as you do, I am surprised that this one escaped you.
There is an act of murder and there is a legal verdict, guilty of murder.
They are distinguishable. OJ Simplson likely committed murder, but he is not guilty of murder. Did I parse that clearly enough for you?
Reinoehl is the admitted murderer.
He admitted it on video.
clarks, definitely suspicious, but not convincing. Thanks for posting.
I suppose you are blind to the fact the Killer….cherry picked his Attorney sources using only those that would be biased enough to tell him cold blooded murder of an un-armed…peaceful pedestrian guilty only of wearing a ball cap the Killer found offensive….qualifies as some kind of evidence of innocence and qualified legal advice?
Now who is being stupid here….the Killer, his choice of legal advice, or you?
I see that Loomis has responded on Twitter — https://twitter.com/ErikLoomis:
“Oooh, Turley is so scary….
“Koch Brothers hack @JonathanTurley thinks I support murder. Meanwhile, his preferred policies kill people around the world every day. But hey, I’m not bought and sold by capitalists. Wonder what it feels like to be a disgusting human being.”
And then he retweeted a response to him, “Heck, I would consider Turley’s disdain as a badge of honor @ErikLoomis! Moreover, he’s egregiously lying about the details surrounding the shooting,” and added “It’s good to have the right enemies.”
Erik Loomis said: “Wonder what it feels like to be a disgusting human being.”
He knows.
“But hey, I’m not bought and sold by capitalists.”
Commit, I can only hope for your sake that you are aware that Loomis would not be receiving a paycheck were it not for the monies paid to his employer by “capitalists”.
What a moronic statement.
More of the leftist love and tolerance for which they are so well known and incessantly preach to us lesser moral beings.
I say “bring it on”. I would invite the good professor and allies from the Brave Masked Wonderful Warriors of Antifa ™ to come to my house in the dead of night with threats of violence. I can promise, it would not end well for them.
And lefties, who support (or turn a blind eye to) this crap, you deserve everything you get when antifa, BLM or just a plain dindu come calling. You will sadly discover that being a “good white” is of little use.
antonio
Note, there have been public incidents in re Erik Loomis in the past.
https://theothermccain.com/2012/12/23/university-rhode-island-erik-loomis/
He received tenure anyway. The entire department countenances this. There is a simple solution, which they could implement if university trustees were anything but otiose and negligent: declare history is not on the subject list anymore and discharge the entire history faculty. RIF ’em all. You cannot repair academe without going Kenesaw Mountain Landis on the faculty.
It’s too bad the First Amendment is used to justify incisive speech such as this.
And yet Sem the boundaries are what they are. His speech is within Brandenberg v Ohio and this sauce for the gander is too:
“I see nothing wrong with the death of Erik Loomis”
Erik Loomis
Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
Tucker House, Rm 207
Phone:401.874.4078
Email:eloomis@uri.edu
Why don’t you put out his home address, stalker?
Good idea.
Kurtz was one of those who promoted the name of the WB publicly in the Trump extortion call to Zelensky. It’s despicable behavior and shows his encouragement of violence.
I won’t put Erik Loomis’ home address out there because I don’t care. But i am sure people can look it up. This is his university information. The article links to it. Go scold Turley for linking perhaps.
Now, here’s another thought. Erik Loomis invites violence on another person, so I say, Erik Loomis invites violence on himself. The wheel of karma will grind his way, perhaps.
I didn’t apologize for murder, Erik Loomis did. If murder comes to Loomis, he will have invited it on himself. But Loomis is a nobody. Just like us., Let’s not get too exercised over nobodies.
Now, let’s ask who else has planned violence on others, and so he invites it on himself. George Soros, and other billionaires, who fund riot, looting, arson, assault, murder, and chaos on American cities in which their mercenaries of BLM & ANTIFA do their thing. I say, George Soros invites violence on himself. And karma may find him too, though it has been a long time in coming, since Soros has wrecked at least 10 lesser nations before he got the nerve up to try it on his own adopted land, America.
Consider the PRC. An adversary and rival of our great nation, America. A place with many faults. The CCP, a troubling leadership organization in that one party state.
But oh, the CCP, they mean business. They don’t let billionaires dare to run amuck there. They mean business.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/asia/china-executes-billionaire-who-ran-mafia-style-criminal-gang.html
At least it took you several paragraphs to deflect like a slimy and wavering elitist violence encouraging lawyer.
I do not deflect. I elaborate. You are intent on insulting me, and don’t understand. That’s ok. You can go read Erik Loomis. Loomis understands the relationship between violence and law and politics and has expressed it in a clear form. I just turned it around.
Loomis does not need to take a lesson from this episode other than the fact that there are factions outside his own which can wield power too.
Loomis grasps the deepest essence of politics and stated it in a clear form.
People here find it troubling. Don’t like what he said, don’t like what I said. Oh, but the two things were alike. So why the outrage.
Let me ask this question. Was Hector troubled by slaying Patroclus? Of course not. But for Hector there is always an Achilles, out there somewhere.
Let’s read the Illiad :
” Then Patroclus sought to flee to the ranks of his comrades. But Hector saw him, and thrust at him with his spear, smiting him in the groin, so that he fell. And when the Greeks saw him fall, they sent up a terrible cry. Then Hector stood over him and cried:—
“Didst thou think to spoil our city, Patroclus, and to carry away our wives and daughters in the ships? But lo! I have slain thee, and the fowls of the air shall eat thy flesh; nor shall the great Achilles help thee at all—Achilles, who bade thee, I trow, strip the tunic from my breast, and thou thoughtest in thy folly to do it.”
But Patroclus answered: “Thou boasteth much, Hector. Yet thou didst not slay me, but Apollo, who took from me my arms, for had twenty such as thou met me, I had slain them all. And mark thou this: death and fate are close to thee by the hand of the great Achilles.”
And Hector answered, but Patroclus was dead already: “Why dost thou prophesy death to me? May be the great Achilles himself shall fall by my hand.”
OF COURSE IT DIDN’T QUITE WORK OUT THAT WAY DID IT.
You’re doing exactly what trump does with his ‘you know what i mean’ two step around encouraging violence.
Politics always relates to violence in some way. I have said this about a thousand times on this website. Do you think it troubles me that you finally understand me?
Here’s some reading for you. Start with Plato’s Republic, Then Read Vom Krieg, and then read Concept of the Political. Or there’s others you might like. Mao. Machiavelli. They all deliver a clear message that must be understood. Politics is in its deepest essence, the social organization of violence by a community, to achieve its political goals vis a vis some other groups. Now it may use many peaceful and laudable means, but in its essence, it is organized violence
Is that too much? then understand the simple reality of all law as well. Laws are ordained by the authorities that have achieved their sovereignty through politics, ie, organized violence. They are supreme because they are the strongest. Their rules for applying violence inside the city, are called laws.
Law is not optional; it is compulsory. It is all enforced with violence, from the sheriff seizing a car and selling it to satisfy a small claims judgment, to someone being executed under a verdict of the death penalty. This is law. If there is no penalty, then there is no law. “Nulla poena sine lege” means, no penalty without law. But rearrange it and equally true: there is no law unless there is a penalty for breaking it.
The reality is now coming to the fore. This is a welcome moment. Scales are dropping from eyes now. You can hate the messenger if you like but comprehend the message
Yes, the Proff is way out of bounds, but JT is throwing more gas, not light, on the situation. I’ve seen the video of Danielson’s shooting and it’s horrible, but JT says he was stalked. That is not obvious and it has now been revealed in court that Danielson had a gun . That doesn’t make him guilty of anything, but Reinhold’s claim that he acted in self defense may have been based on a real or imagined fear, and his actnot an assassination. By appearances Danielson was the better human, but like in Kenosha with both Blake and Rittenhouse, these were tragedies of split 2nd judgments made lethal by the prevalence of guns on our streets.
JT should quit fanning this BS and promoting ideas like this proffs and then the inevitable blowback from the other side. There are always idiots commenting. Why move the debate to their territory?
Book: :Yes, the Proff is way out of bounds, but…”
I didn’t get past the ‘but’ Book. Not worth the trouble.
UR High represents!!
I just don’t think some people today understand the total ramifications of what they are promoting or actually doing.
They were careless people, Tom and Daisy.
Too many of these people in academia are brainwashed, indoctrinated, completely mixed up, and dangerous. What utterly miserable, evil, sociopathic people they are.
Turley netted another extremist in a position of influence. OK. Now how about the legal ramifications with Trump getting the charges of him raping someone transferred from a case against him to a case against the Presidency or the government; something the taxpayer will have to pay for.
Issac- If your going off topic for a bit does Tara Reade count? “Come on Man”.
The other day we read where Nick Sandmann was going to be “monitored” by the University that he was attending. I think the question is who is monitoring the lunatics instructing at these Universities?
I cannot imagine how anyone with a functioning brain and an ounce of self-preservation can be part of the democrat party. It is, apparently, the party that condones the murder of those who do not subscribe to their insane quasi-religious beliefs. University campuses are the worst- shades of Pol Pot! I walked away in 2009 (after working in 2008 for the Obama campaign- an experience which opened my eyes) and I’ve never looked back.
“Michael Reinoehl is the guy who killed the fascist in Portland last week. He admitted it and said he was scared the cops would kill him. Well, now the cops have killed him. I am extremely anti-conspiracy theory. But it’s not a conspiracy theory at this point in time to wonder if the cops simply murdered him. The police is [sic] shot through with fascists from stem to stern. They were openly working with the fascists in Portland, as they were in Kenosha which led to dead protestors.”
***********************************
Paging Lin Wood, again.
So, the professor sees nothing morally or tactically wrong if someone stalked and killed him. Of course, if he was dead, what would he care. Still.
In other words, the “professor” needs to be stalked and killed or at the very mininum have his feet catch on fire as a “peaceful protestor”
these people are nut jobs.
Stupid is, as stupid does.
I wonder if Mr. Loomis would see the benefits of a lawful society if he were being stalked?
Actually, we know the answer.
We see a lot of chickenhawks espousing violence when they feel safe.
Problem is, dragons rarely go back to their cages once they finish the job.
Worth considering by all those who excuse violence and lawlessness to get Trump out of office.
That which he sows will he also reap.
Sprec Frei or die.