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.
Why does he “wonder what it’s like to be a disgusting human being?” Lack of self-awareness?
In your otherwise excellent article, you made the following assertion: “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.” There is a distinct difference between the two situations. The Red Scare occurred during the Cold War, when the USSR’s stated goal was the overthrow of the United States and its replacement with a totalitarian communist state, subordinate to Moscow. The Communist Party of the United States of America was financed and controlled by the Soviet Union and its members were not simply dissenters who were seeking to advance a political idea, but agents of a hostile foreign power which had already committed acts of war, including espionage, against the United States. Despite this, there were no riots by anti-communists which sought to conduct extrajudicial killings of avowed (or hidden) CPUSA members, much less stalking and murder of the same. The McCarthy hearings were aimed at identifying CPUSA members, who were also Soviet agents, who held sensitive positions within the Department of Defense, while the House Un-American Activities Committee sought to identify Soviet agents of influence who had used their positions in Hollywood to propagandize on behalf of Stalin.
Antifa seeks to destroy those who disagree with its agenda, and fabricates a threat from these dissenters to justify their violence. The anti-communists sought to identify those who acted on behalf of an evil and hostile regime, expose them and mitigate the damage that they had already done and would continue to do.
“Glenn Greenwald: Why The Media Is SILENT On Julian Assange’s Trial”
•Sep 9, 2020
As a history major at the University of Rhode Island, you will cultivate an informed understanding and appreciation of past societies and cultures through a diverse range of courses. You’ll most likely learn how to read and if you do you may learn critical race theory, probably the only way slugs like you can stay out of jail while looting, burning, injuring and killing. Remember, write on walls and extort creatively.
Professor Loomis said:
“@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.”
Hate to tell you this JT, but the Professor Loomises of the world consider you as reprehensible as they do me. You’re a “nazi” in their book too. Afraid it it isn’t the Democratic Party of Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan anymore. When the Brave Masked Wonderful Warriors of Antifa ™ and BLM come calling, being a “good liberal” will be of little help to you.
I say this as someone who has admired your work for years.
antonio
And Erik Loomis responds, again:
“Erik Loomis
@ErikLoomis
DEBATE ME!!!!!!!
Quote Tweet
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
· 2h
…Professor Loomis has now responded and I have added it to the blog column. Loomis continues his signature style of hurling insults rather than addressing the underlying issues addressed in the blog.
12:24 PM · Sep 9, 2020·Twitter Web App”
https://twitter.com/ErikLoomis/status/1303746172473966592
Loomis debate Turley? That’s a laugh. A buffoon history prof with a degree from New Mexico versus a law professor with impeccable credentials and decades of litigation under his belt. Never a better matchup since the Monty Python took on the fierce Black Knight.
https://youtu.be/ZmInkxbvlCs
Good choice for analogy! One of my favorite scenes!
I’m afraid our good Professor Loomis thinks hurling insults IS debating. So it wouldn’t be much of a debate for some of us more educated-type folk.
Sooo, is it OK to kill commies too???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Grow up ‘girl.’
@squeeky
How dare you ask such a thing, I’m clinging my pearls!!! Everyone know that communists, including the Brave Masked Wonderful Warriors of Antifa (TM) are fighting for a better world – one with no exploitation of man by man, a society where all are equal. Thought everyone knew this.
Antifa means “anti fascist” And a fascist is basically anyone who disagrees with them and critical race theory. These “fascists” must be eliminated. Got it now?
antonio
It’s really great that Professor Loomis has made this equation so clear. of course, random street violence is not the aim.
nationwide strong political organization is the aim and with it comes the levers of the state. state power is the aim
and with state power and a sufficient base of support, a reelected Trump can take the fight not only to the street thugs and criminals of blm and antifa– but more effectively– he can take the fight to the global oligarchs and financiers like Soros who put them in motion in the first place.
The strategic aims of a second term that Trump will not say, but I project, must include: a) finishing the work that Durham has failed to do so far, and b) getting past that small clique of miscreants and reaching up the ladder to those who have aided, abetted, and financed the last 100 days of crime and disorder and intimidation unleashed in the cities. RICO laws can and must be used to seize corporate assets and imprison the racketeers who have tried to intimidate the American people. I mean prison for some notorious billionaires for starters.
By defanging some of these serpents, other more constructive changes to law and society become possible which will help address growing social inequality created by the wild policies of the Federal Reserve which has greatly enriched the Soros types even as all of us just kind of fumble along at the margins. The working people of this country if we unite behind Trump can accomplish so much more than we have seen so far. It is possible and so much good can come but first we must fight the tip of the spear and the hand that wields it too
If the war mongers and intel creeps are put in their place, more peace can break out too. Donald’s been the first president to decrease troops in the middle east in 39 years, it’s got him nominated for a Nobel Prize and more good can yet come in a second term. It’s so amazing that Bosnians and Serbs have inked agreements too. Who would have thought that could be done. Well it sure wasnt done by Obama. What did he have to show. Maybe he tried, or maybe he was too much under the thumb of the war mongers. Clearly in his second term, their best gal Hillary had other plans
Squeeky:
Leave Fruit of the Loomis alone. He’s special and gets to say anything he likes cause it’s not prohibited conservative speech.
Meanwhile, the House Intelligence Committee has released the DHS whistleblower complaint: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
Which is more important, Mr. Loomis’s comments, or DHS malfeasance?
“In mid-May 2020, Mr. Wolf instructed Mr. Murphy to cease providing intelligence assessments on the threat of Russian interference in the United States, and instead start reporting on interference activities by China and Iran.”
What a surprise. /s
Meanwhile, Biden’s former stenographer says he is declining rapidly into incompetence.
What is more important, yet another stupid Deep State report, or a Democrat candidate for President of the United States who is becoming a drooling idiot?
Fauci just now on @FOXNews:
“I didn’t see any discrepancies between what we told [Trump] and what he told the public.”
End of Woodward story.
Will CNN report this?
Anon– “Will CNN report this?”
Not a chance. Why spoil a good lie?
Fauci also noted “I didn’t read the book. … I may not be tuned in to the right thing that they’re talking about. … I’m hesitant to comment on that because I don’t know in what context you’re asking the question.”
And Trump himself is on tape saying “I wanted to- I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.”
Was Trump lying when he said “I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down”?
He does lie a lot. For example, he’s quite happy trying to panic people about things when he thinks it serves him.
I think he was telling the truth when he said he didn’t want to create a panic. You have a problem with that, Commit?
Remember FDR saying we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Same thing, trying to calm nerves so problems could be addressed rationally.
Have you said yet whether you will take HCQ if you get Covid?
Trump’s quite happy to create a panic when he thinks it serves him.
As Trevor Noah noted, “Since when is Donald J. Trump concerned about creating a panic? That is literally his favorite thing! [pretending to be Trump:] Cities are burning. Suburbs are collapsing. Caravans of Antifa Mexicans are committing Muslim voter fraud. [back to himself] His campaign slogan is basically ‘Look out behind you!’”
Noah is right that Trump’s brand is panic. Just consider some of his comments about Mexico and the border:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. … They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
“I love the Mexican people, but Mexico is not our friend. They’re killing us at the border and they’re killing us on jobs and trade. FIGHT!”
“El Chapo and the Mexican drug cartels use the border unimpeded like it was a vacuum cleaner, sucking drugs and death right into the U.S.”
“Mexico’s court system corrupt.I want nothing to do with Mexico other than to build an impenetrable WALL and stop them from ripping off U.S.”
“You look at countries like Mexico, where they’re killing us on the border, absolutely destroying us on the border. They’re destroying us in terms of economic development.”
“The border is wide open for cartels & terrorists.”
“We will NOT let these Caravans, which are also made up of some very bad thugs and gang members, into the U.S. Our Border is sacred, must come in legally. TURN AROUND!”
“We’re being invaded. When you look at that, thousands of people… that’s called an invasion of our country.”
And we could come up with similar collections of Trump quotes about Antifa, about Muslims, about BLM, about voter fraud, about Democrats committing “treason,” about other things Trump is absolutely happy to make out to be calamitous problems.
But he couldn’t be honest that SARS-CoV-2 is worse than the flu?!?
What *ss-lickers Trump fans are.
Yes, I have a problem with Trump’s gaslighting. If you don’t already know that, you’re not paying attention.
Is there anything that Trump said that wasn’t true?
Given he cares nothing about whether what he says is true or not, at best 50-50 on the former.
I see that you’re trying to shift the discussion from whether he’s willing to cause a panic.
He is willing to create a panic when he thinks it serves him. But you can’t admit it.
Trump lied when downplaying the risks of COVID-19. Here are some things he was saying publicly around the same time he was telling Bob Woodward that it was more serious than the flu and that he was downplaying things:
“We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”
“China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well.”
“We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.”
“Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away. I hope that’s true. But we’re doing great in our country. … And I think it’s going to all work out fine.”
“A lot of people think that goes away in April with the heat — as the heat comes in. Typically, that will go away in April. We’re in great shape, though.”
“You may ask about the coronavirus, which is very well under control in our country. We have very few people with it… But the people are getting better. They’re all getting better.”
“The flu, in our country, kills from 25,000 people to 69,000 people a year. And, so far, if you look at what we have with the 15 people and their recovery, one is — one is pretty sick but hopefully will recover, but the others are in great shape. But think of that: 25,000 to 69,000. And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.”
“We’ve taken the most aggressive actions to confront the coronavirus. They are the most aggressive taken by any country.”
“This is their [the Democrats] new hoax.”
“So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!”
“Anybody that wants a test can get a test. That’s what the bottom line is.” [said on March 6th]
“This [pandemic] was unexpected. … We’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.”
“America will again, and soon, be open for business — very soon — a lot sooner than three or four months that somebody was suggesting. A lot sooner.” [said on March 23rd]
You apparently believe everything he said about Mexico was true. Why couldn’t he tell the truth about COVID-19?
“Trump lied when downplaying the risks of COVID-19.” – Committed to Dishonest DNC Talking Points
According the CDC, he had every reason to downplay the “risks of Covid-19”.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
“Comorbidities
Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.”
So that clearly means that there have only been around 10,000 deaths since February 1st that could be attributed solely to Covid.
Then when you factor in the extremely questionable criteria used by the CDC to determine a Covid related death, it’s even less than 10,000.
All in all, it is a scamdemic, not a pandemic. Which is further evidenced by the fact that all the MSM reports on are positive test results, while ignoring the plunging death counts since the end of April.
It’s a classic of propaganda.
Rhodes, your claim – the premise of which, i.e., Covid 19 is next to harmless, is rejected by the world’s medical community – requires thousands of co-conspirators all intent on hurting Trump without regard for their duties as medical personnel. The CDC collects the data submitted from around the country and that includes “cause of death” analysis.
“there have only been around 10,000 deaths since February 1st that could be attributed solely to Covid.”
Are you going to pretend that when Trump says “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year,” those numbers don’t *also* include people with comorbidities and only include “deaths … that could be attributed solely to” the flu? You want to play a dishonest game where you pretend that COVID-19 deaths should be counted in a different way than flu deaths. I’m not going to play that game with you
You lie when you claim “the plunging death counts since the end of April.” — see coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/cumulative-cases (choose “deaths” and “linear” for the display; if the daily deaths were plunging, the curve would be leveling out)
And you’re also ignoring that *Trump* has admitted that COVID-19 is “more deadly than… even your strenuous flus … This is more deadly. … This is 5% versus 1% and less than 1%, you know? So this is deadly stuff” and that he was trying to downplay the numbers. Here’s him saying what I just quoted:
Agreed. Trump craves attention and will get it no matter the cost, including panic.
Another news item with a similar WH claim that is ridiculous on the face of it is the idea that the DOJ must step in on the rape charge and denial because it distracts from the president’s duties. As if much, if not most of Trump’s time is not spent pursuing personal vendettas. He lives for them.
This guy’s craving for attention is exhausting – not to mention damaging – for the country and he’ll be gone after the election primarily for that reason, other qualities and positions of the candidates almost irrelevant. We’d all enjoy not having to think about the president for weeks at a time – admit it.
Trump’s a malignant narcissist (a combination of narcissism, paranoia, sociopathy, and sadism — https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/5-types-people-who-can-ruin-your-life/202005/malignant-narcissism-does-the-president-have-it). He craves attention but also enjoys hurting people who disagree with him. I sure hope you’re right that he’ll be gone in January.
So, Fauci repeatedly – over a 5 months period – told Trump it would just go away, that we will have a vaccine before the election, and that we should encourage people to ignore federal guidelines on masks and social distancing?
Help me out here.
PS We have the tapes or tweets of Trump telling Woodward he’d play it down, of Trump telling us over and over and into the present that it would just go away, of him encouraging protests against federal guideines and repeatedly mocking those who tried to follow them, and of him saying we’ll have a vaccine before the election.
.
Fauci’s opinion is irrelevant to the known facts.
“that we should encourage people to ignore federal guidelines on masks” – BTB
Yes, Fauci clearly said that, “People should not be walking around with masks” , on 60 Minutes in March:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLNBw7XCM4Q
Any other questions you need “Help” with?
Yes Rhodes, Fauci once said that in the context of medical people needing masks more, and Obama said “you can keep your insurance” and Trymp cut off some travel from China. None of these one-off incidents are relevant to Fauci’s distorting the known facts in his comment yesterday.
We have the tape.
That was not the “context”, Book.
Fauci clearly stated that masks did more harm than good, due to “unintended consequences”, because “people keep fiddling with the masks, and they keep touching their face”.
Of course, you are incapable of discerning why he did a 180 and changed his story just a couple of weeks later to fit the prescribed narrative.
That is the Canary in the scamdemic coal mine. It is nothing but a ruse.
Rhodes, should thank you for further besmirching Fauci’s credibility in light of his fact adverse statements yesterday? What exactly is your point?
By the way, I will refrain from voting for Fauci for president, so thanks for that.
“None of these one-off incidents are relevant to Fauci’s distorting the known facts in his comment yesterday.”
??
What has one got to do with the other?
‘“In mid-May 2020, Mr. Wolf instructed Mr. Murphy to cease providing intelligence assessments on the threat of Russian interference in the United States, and instead start reporting on interference activities by China and Iran.”
What a surprise. /s”
It was clear far earlier then May 2020 any associated Russia narrative was an embarrassing sophomoric political stunt, and important assets needed to be trained on legitimate issues. But don’t let me step on your “reds and Donald Trump are under your bed” fantasies.
I’m sure Erik Loomis can be hunted down and brought to heel..
“But hey, I’m not bought and sold by capitalists. Wonder what it feels like to be a disgusting human being.”
*******************
Yeah, he prefers his purchasers to be a bit more red. As for his claimed lack of personal experience here, I’m very dubious. I bet he knows exactly what it feels like.
we know how Geo Soros goes around tossing big money at all these left wingers to shill for him. He is one of the richest financiers on earth and they have ever known how to manipulate the left. Bloomberg is another such type
in earlier generations I can think of a few. Armand Hammer was one.
Another was Jacob Schiff
the idea that Turley is “paid for” by Koch brothers is perplexing. I am not sure where Loomis got that. He didn’t explain. We hear trash like this tossed about in these comments and never is their proof. And observe, please, that Koch brothers hate Donald too. Free traders, like Soros and little Mikey and Bezos and the rest of the plutocratic gang.
i know…perplexing. The obvious social media influencer set up of this blog is just so hard to figure out. Never fear though, Kurtz. Nothing some overt racism and encouragement of armed insurrection won’t fix though. So you’re in a good spot.
Kurtz is a racist like bug is an intellectual. Here’s hoping for more watering of the liberty tree from the anarchist’s veins.
“For an academic to espouse such hateful and violent views is particularly distressing” Further, it is grossly appalling and seriously unprofessional. Douglas Murray has recently stated that the belief in the imminence of “fascism” is a delusion and misinterpretation of reality. The someone would kill while deluded with such a ‘gnostic’ puritanical belief is mental illness..
Yeah, this is why I’ve been saying, these people need to just be shot on sight. They think our lives are worthless, so they see nothing wrong with killing us.
These people need to be shot where they stand.
We need to go after politicians, and the media full bore when the shit hits the fan.
Eliminating theses animals is the only solution.
Considering the leeway those leftists have been getting why worry about it when the right wing of the left or the left wing of the left is caught up in their own makings?
I see nothing wrong with shooting Loomis.
Wait a minute, this professor doesn’t understand that the anti first amendment group antifa are the fascists he believes are a problem in America?
His logic basically ok’s someone who disagrees with his political views to shoot him.
The university system in America is a cess pool of stupidity.
Why tenure is dangerous.
Academia will fire someone who says “All Lives Matter” but will silently approve someone who says these lives that don’t share my opinions can be murdered.
How did it all go so wrong?
Higher education is a collecting pool of Bourbons. They exist to perpetuate their privileges. They’re begging for the ministrations of Robespierre.
Young– contrast this with the story a few days ago of the professor who was removed from teaching a class because in a lecture about how filler words are used around the world he used a Chinese word that sounded like a racial slur. As for this useful idiot professor Loomis, who does he think pays for his tenured salary? There’s pages and pages of endowments for the University of Rhode Island. How much of that money came from the capitalists he despises and how much came from the Antifa assassins and looters he seems to embrace? What a fraud.
Professor Turley – I used to enjoy reading your intelligent legal opinions about a variety of problems facing us today, but of late, you’ve become a weak, prevaricating writer who can’t/won’t stand up for what’s right and decent. You consistently use the First Amendment as a shield, and today when what’s so clearly wrong and indecent, you say it must be defended, but even I can see that absolutely NOTHING justifies supporting of or being in agreement with, the taking another person’s life. In the matter of Life & Death, Free Speech be damned. Before you cross over completely to the dark sides of those other deranged professors, please, either go to your closet and find a pair of big-boy pants, or visit a a urologist to discuss your testicular problems.
There is absolutely SOMETHING that justifies taking another person’s life: that other person’s attempt to take yours or inflict significant bodily harm. Every State in the Union recognizes this unalienable right to self defense. In case you are still confused, here is the difference in this case, as currently alleged and supported by evidence to date. Danielson was unarmed, and was murdered in cold blood by Reinoehl without proportional, unavoidable provocation for such an act; it was not self defense in any way. Reinoehl was being served an arrest warrant for his videoed admission of that alleged act of murder. He would have been provided the presumption of innocence that Danielson was not afforded, but he chose to attempt another murder of the arresting officer, but this time the intended victim was able to defend himself, which is fully justified under our legal system, if proven as current evidence suggests by a jury of peers after careful deliberation of the investigated facts of the matter.
Deb, Professor Turkey gave an intelligent response. He didn’t defend what the man said. Quite the contrary. He was quite forceful in his disagreement. He did defend the right of the man to say it……that is the First Amendment. It’s called freedom of speech. Your suggestions to Professor Turley were way over the line. Maybe next time, you
It would be helpful to read the article several times to make sure you understand the content before you attack.
I do wonder what speech falls outside of the first amendment. I have always heard that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater as an example not protected by free speech. So is inciting a mob protected by free speech? Is advocating insurrection protected by free speech? Or is it protected as long as no action or consequence follows? It seems Loomis is not inciting but justifying murder. I suspect legally he has not crossed any lines but yes, condemnation by his peers seems necessary. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I am just thinking out loud from a laypersons perspective.
I have followed JT for many years and usually find him to set up the problem and then let us decide what we think is the best solution. He may take a side, especially if it is free speech issue, however, he leaves it to us to arm wrestle out a decision.
Professor Turley – I used to enjoy reading your intelligent legal opinions about a variety of problems facing us today, but of late, you’ve become a weak, prevaricating writer who can’t/won’t stand up for what’s right and decent. You consistently use the First Amendment as a shield, and today when what’s so clearly wrong and indecent, you say it must be defended, but even I can see that absolutely NOTHING justifies the supporting of or being in agreement with, taking another person’s life. In the matter of Life & Death, Free Speech be damned. Before you cross over completely to the dark sides of those other deranged professors, please, either go to your closet and find a pair of big-boy pants, or visit a a urologist to discuss your testicular problems.
Here is the thing. Violence is part of politics and it always was. This goes back to Plato’s Republic, the first systematic treatment of it. before that, it was reality when the first cities built walls against the savages outside the walls. I guess that would be ancient Sumer, in the land we now call Iraq, five thousand years ago. Or before that, one band of cavement against another.
More recently, Von Clausewitz spoke of war as an extension of politics.
Carl Schmitt the German jurist wrote “theory of the political” which made it clear about a century ago, how the dynamic works in modern times.
Erik Loomis understands this. So did the ANTIFA murderer. they are foot-soldiers for their political clique. I hypothesize the leaders of their clique are, ironically, billionaire globalists like George Soros but many others who make huge donations similar to he.
We have a side too. We have a faction. We have a people. Loomis is our adversary. He has made this clear. He is an enemy. Enemies should be defeated. This is the logic of the act of the ANTIFA murderer, too. We can denounce their words and deeds but we are eventually faced with the same question: if or how our enemies will be defeated. Mr Loomis and Mr ANTIFA show will.
Let’s look in the mirror and see past the haze of legalistic doctrines like free speech, etc etc etc. And ask the more salient question: Do we lack the will?
This is the perennial form of politics. The US is not “the end of history” it is just part of it and the same deep logic that applied in ancient Sumer applies here today.
Oswald Spengler, not a nazi but a german conservative who considered socialism a good word not a dirty word, wrote:
” Thus we find two great economic principles opposed to each other in the modern world. The Viking has become a free-tradesman; the Teutonic knight is now an administrative official. There can be no reconciliation. Each of these principles is proclaimed…Neither can accept a restriction of its will, and neither can be satisfied until the whole world has succumbed to its particular idea. This being the case, war will be waged until one side gains final victory. Is world economy to be worldwide exploitation, or worldwide organization? Are the Caesars of the coming empire to be billionaires or universal administrators? Shall the population of the earth, so long as this empire of Faustian civilization holds together, be subjected to cartels and trusts, or to men such as those envisioned in the closing pages of Goethe’s Faust, Part II? Truly, the destiny of the world is at stake. …
This brings us to the political aspects of the English-Prussian antithesis. Politics is the highest and most powerful dimension of all historical existence. World history is the history of states; the history of states is the history of wars. Ideas, when they press for decisions, assume the form of political units: countries, peoples, or parties. They must be fought over not with words but with weapons. Economic warfare becomes military warfare between countries or within countries. …Everything that proceeds from the innermost soul to become flesh or fleshly creation demands a sacrifice of flesh in return. Ideas that have become blood demand blood. War is the eternal pattern of higher human existence, and countries exist for war’s sake; they are signs of readiness for war. And even if a tired and blood-drained humanity desired to do away with war, like the citizens of the Classical world during its final centuries, … it would merely exchange its role of war-wager for that of the object about and with which others would wage war. Even if a Faustian universal harmony could be attained, masterful types on the order of late Roman, late Chinese, or late Egyptian Caesars would battle each other for this Empire—for the possession of it, if its final form were capitalistic; or for the highest rank in it, if it should become socialistic.”
now, nearly a century has passed since Spengler wrote too. to understand that in context, again, understand he was a conservative who admired “Socialism” not as a form of tyranny of the poor and their commie leaders; but as a form of just public administration. in his viewpoint, capitalism would tend to lead to economic and social inequities which would themselves evoke communism, which he deplored. in other words, men of his day often viewed a just socialism as a viable choice against communism and capitalism alike, which they viewed as two faces of the same coin.
now I am not advocating “socialism” which now is a very dirty word. but i am saying, there is a matter of economic and social justice. there are questions of that. American politicians must grapple with those questions. Trump has advanced his own vision which is based on economic nationalism and free enterprise. The rival vision is globalism, a system of globalization, in which national boundaries are viewed as impediments to free trade, free flow of goods that is, impediments to free flow of capital/ money; free flow of information ie the global mass media operatoins; and free flow of labor ie migration from global south to America and europe. The latter view of globalization is championed by Geo soros and the other billionaires who are paying the Democrats and the BLM and organizing the riots against us.
we have an existential choice. This is what Democrats say about Trump. indeed perhaps they are right. I view this an an existential choice for America. Will it be the engine only of globalization for the benefit of billionaire free traders, or will it remain a sovereign nation that is free to act on its own initiative and does so for the benefit of the citizens as a whole. These are two visions that are at odds. If Trump loses, we will be de facto slaves of George Soros who views the world as a global plantation.
Erik Loomis is a fool because he does not understand how ANTIFA serves the interest of billionaires. The funny thing is that given his CV one might think he is capable of such an understanding. but one suspects that fools like Loomis get picked to teach the subjects they do, by the universities which are endowed by the billionaires like Soros, precisely because they do NOT understand their supposed specialties.
Here let me copy another part of his data and you will see what i mean perhaps:
“Research
labor and environmental history of the United States
global capitalism
U.S. West
Selected Publications
Books
…
Out of Sight: The Long and Disturbing Story of Corporations Outsourcing Catastrophe. The New Press, 2015. Named Choice Outstanding Academic Title. Translated into Chinese by Azoth Books Company, 2017. …”
__________
Loomis pretends to be a critic of global capitalism, but in aligning himself against a working class American wearing a “patriot prayer” hat who was murdered by an ANTIFA on the street, it’s clear he is the servant of global capital himself.
Professor Turkey asks where are they others at the University condemning this. I’d say they were in the paint shed having the backs painted YELLOW!!!