It is date night.
I’m taking my wife out to eat and to see The Lion King. Before I head out the door, I want to show you what the True Conservatives at National Review are proposing to do to White Nationalists. As you know, “conservative liberals” are dedicated to the preserving the eternal principles of classical liberalism, which makes them a very different breed of animal from “progressive liberals.”
I will have a lot more to say about this later tonight when I get home. It will probably be sufficient though just to show you the value of the principles of “conservative liberalism” to our community.
David French calls for a declaration of war on White Nationalism:
“It’s time to face some dreadful, terrible facts. The United States is now facing a deadly challenge from a connected, radical, online-organizing community of vicious white-nationalist terrorists. They are every bit as evil as jihadists, and they radicalize in much the same way. And just like the ISIS terrorists our nation and our allies have confronted in the great cities of the West, they use the most modern of tools to advance the oldest of hatreds.
America has faced waves of white-supremacist terror in the past, and there are always at least some, few extremists lurking in the dark corners of American life. We’ve come to expect the occasional act of white-supremacist violence, and we’ve sometimes explained it away as the last spasm of a dying bigotry.
Beginning in 2015, however, it became apparent to those who had eyes to see that our nation was starting to experience a new youth movement of hate. The Charleston church massacre was followed by a strange — and for those who experienced it — terrifying wave of bizarre online racist harassment. The word “alt-right” entered the American lexicon. …”
“A so-called “red flag” law fills the gaps in criminal law and the laws governing mental-health adjudications by granting standing to a defined, limited universe of people to seek temporaryseizure orders — called gun-violence-restraining orders — for a gun if they can present admissible evidence that the gun’s owner is exhibiting threatening behavior. …
“There is no question that poorly drafted laws are subject to abuse. Grant too many people standing to seek an order, lower the burdens of proof, or allow for easy access to ex parte orders, and you expose law-abiding citizens to the threat of vindictive proceedings. But these are fixable issues that should not be an impediment to effective reform. The Federal Commission on School Safety, which has recommended passing red-flag laws, wisely argues that “states should adopt clear and narrow definitions identifying appropriate persons with standing to file a petition” and that “states can deter misuse or abuse of the [red flag] process through appropriate criminal penalties for false (bad faith) or harassing petitions.”2
No one should suggest that red-flag laws represent a cure for mass shootings. Of course they don’t. The challenge is too complex and the trend too well entrenched to be defeated by any single public policy. If properly drafted, such laws do, however, provide the public with a vital tool that can cover the gaps left between a healthy criminal-prosecution regime and a woefully inadequate mental-health-adjudication process.
A partial public-policy cure — especially one that is targeted to the exact real-world challenges presented by mass shooters — is better than no cure at all. Trump is right to call for red-flag laws. State legislators should heed his call.”
“Of course, the contemporary FBI obviously isn’t going to take over the alt-right, nor should we want it to. The abuses of the COINTELPRO programs — the FBI also targeted civil-rights groups and the New Left, among others — became notorious when they were exposed in the 1970s.
There are also practical obstacles to the FBI duplicating its anti-Klan work, the most important of which is that the Klan was an organization, whereas today’s white supremacists are isolated, free-floating haters whose only connection to anyone else often is anonymous Internet postings.
Yet the FBI needs to be intensely focused on this threat. The bureau should take an intelligence-based approach. It should monitor sewer Internet boards such as 8chan, the preferred white-supremacist forum for propagandizing for mass murder. Posters who cross over from First Amendment–protected speech to incitement should be prosecuted. The FBI should interview anyone expressing sympathy with terrorism — just as it does with suspected Islamic extremists — and surveil such persons as appropriate and permitted under the law.3
El Paso was an outrage, and surely not the last. We need to react accordingly.“
Andrew McCarthy on how all “white supremacists” should be considered police suspects and investigated by law enforcement. This is all very “constitutional” like arbitrarily seizing firearms from people:
“What is required, however, is the will to do a full-court press. White supremacists tend to strike as loners, not as operatives of an organization; but there are social-media communities and other meeting places to which they gravitate. We have to set aside the reluctance to monitor the resulting communications and associations for intelligence purposes.
If a person is a white supremacist, that implies a hostility to our societal order and sympathy for racist brutality. To cite the obvious example, the online message board 8chan, on which the El Paso white-supremacist terrorist posted his manifesto, often lionizes Dylann Roof, the infamous white supremacist who carried out the Charleston church massacre. No, being a white supremacist and associating with white supremacists are not, by themselves, grounds for prosecution; but they are constitutionally sufficient grounds for police suspicion. They warrant investigation. It has always been permissible to use beliefs, associations, and speech for evidentiary purposes in criminal investigations. This is not criminalizing constitutionally protected ideas; it is investigating to prevent the violent crimes to which aggressively hateful ideas are known to lead.
The First Amendment protects a person’s right to believe in white supremacism, to be a white supremacist, to associate with other white supremacists, and to discuss their repulsive beliefs. Yet, the Constitution does not require police — or the rest of us — to blind ourselves to the nexus between ideology and violence.”
“Over the weekend, Twitter commentator Kilgore Trout offered an extreme option: Authorities can determine who posts on boards that celebrate mass shootings or troll about them, and they should charge them as accessories to the crime. (Profanity warning at the link; the term for posting memes and other messages celebrating, promoting, and encouraging mass shooters is a four-letter word.) Cleaning up his language a bit, his recommendation is. . .
“You’re not going to fix the problem one white nationalist ****poster at a time. their networks need to be destroyed by putting them in constant fear that their next ****post body count meme is going to be the one that sends the feds to their door. Yes, this is a government action deliberately designed to suppress speech, and no, slyly conspiring to commit acts of terror in broad daylight on 8chan is not protected speech after the acts of terror are no longer hypotheticals. This is what we’d advocate for if ISIS set up shop in America and created a bunch of one-man splinter cells ready to activate at any moment. No one would bat an eye at arresting the accomplices – it’s just less recognizable as white nationalist ****posting. if you want to share ****posts about shooting the [offensive term for Latinos] and gassing the Jews, go right ahead, no one’s stopping you. But if one of your ****post buddies you go back and forth with on 8chan then goes out and does it, yeah, you should be good and[in deep trouble].” …
Maybe this just reflects an exhaustion with “trolling” culture. If you spend a significant amount of time online — particularly on Twitter — you’ve probably put up with more abuse than your ever imagined, often racist or anti-Semitic and more than vaguely threatening. The vast majority of us think of ourselves as a First Amendment supporters, but perhaps you can only be sent “Trump’s gonna put you in the ovens” memes so many times before you start thinking, “to hell with this, if this guy sending me this message is such a big fan of fascism, let’s have the government throw his butt in jail for what he posts and see if he likes it so much then.”
Here’s what you need to know:
1.) First, this is all highly “constitutional.”
2.) Second, this is also extremely “principled.”
3.) Third, “conservative liberalism” is very different from “progressive liberalism” and should be taken seriously.
4.) Fourth, this is fully consistent with the eternal principles of classical liberalism. This is not a volte face call for authoritarianism and state repression.
5.) Fifth, it is simply isn’t true that conservatives have conserved nothing, and the proof of their success is gun control. Conservatives are holding the line on gun control by supporting Minority Report-style pre-crime surveillance, suppression of dissidents and confiscation of firearms.
6.) Finally, you need to get out and support Blompf in the 2016 election because the Democrats R The Real Racists and the black unemployment rate has never been lower and the U.S. embassy has been moved to Jerusalem. We want them to come in legally in the HIGHEST NUMBERS EVER.