Saturday, September 10, 2016


    A minor Internet writer of the Alt-Right named Emirjeta Xhelili went berserk in a Brooklyn Park yesterday and attacked two Islamic women and their 15 month-old baby. The women and child were not harmed, according to the NYPD; although Ms. Emirjeta ripped off the women's headscarves and overturned the stroller while shouting anti-Islamic Alt-Right slogans.

    Ms. Emirjita herself is an Albanian immigrant, ironically. Albanians were given a protected immigration status during the Clinton Administration's illegal war during the so-called Kosovo Crisis. The US Corporate Media has been making a fuss over the incident, as Xhelili is Trump supporter; and her writings indicate that she sees The Donald as some kind of Messianic figure. Her writings are also with several novel interpretations of Biblical passages.

     In fairness of course, we should point out that the Corporate Media routinely ignores much more serious crimes regularly committed by Far-Left 'activists'. But that is not the important point here: we all should know by now that the Mainstream Media is corrupt, and prone to engage in such biases.

    The problem is that, as we and many other bloggers continually stress, the dangerous rhetoric coming routinely out of Alt-Right bloggers, the Manosphere, and radio shock-jocks are bound to provoke actions from a certain segment of the population. These commentators inevitably slink away from people like Ms. Emirjita when they go on such rampages and hide behind the excuse that they are being informative, not prescriptive--- a sophistry which is always employed by demagogues.

     The reasoning behind this way of thinking may be shown by numerous examples. A Red Pill blogger for example recently stated that we are involved in a cultural war and that "your skin color is your uniform." If readers of that blog take such advice seriously and commit illegal or immoral deeds based upon it, the authors simply back away and say: "I only state an opinion. I am not responsible for what others do with that opinion."

      Considering that most of the Alt-Right call themselves libertarian, it's surprising that they so readily forget the famous maxim of one of libertarianism's founders Ayn Rand: "Ideas have consequences." And actually Rand was restating what is a common legal principle of civilized peoples, that those who furnish the means towards, or incites a criminal act are complicit in that act. To accept the Alt-Right position is to fall back upon the Marxist sophistries of moral relativism and that the ends justify the means.

       What separates the demagogue from the activist hinges on this informative vs. prescriptive model. The activist too, gives opinions and exposes problems, but the activist's goal is to bring awareness to a problem for the purpose of bringing about reform. To give examples from our own blog; when we expose corruption and wrongdoing it is to bring awareness to the problem and the prescriptive solution is to be wary of deceivers, or call for political, social, or economic reforms, or open investigations bringing criminals to justice. This is to be accomplished by our own legal and political system; and often we give examples of foreign countries who have had similar problems and solved them peacefully.

      In contrast, the demagogue is a verbal arsonist. He intentionally frames arguments with incendiary statements, hoping for a violent or headline-grabbing result. Just as in the case of the arsonist, these characters receive some type of perverted thrill from the damage and chaos they cause. While none of them will likely admit that they approve of Emirjita Xhelili's actions, it's a safe assumption that most of them secretly do; and have a sense of satisfaction that their words are bearing fruit.

       Given our Constitution's protection of free speech, it is more difficult than most other countries to hold demagogues legally accountable, although it is not impossible. The FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover's administration was able to bring a few to justice. The Courts have held that the legal criterion in such cases have to establish clear intent of inciting criminal behavior. Though strict, it is an important guarantee of freedom, but given our current political and social climate, legal remedies against demagoguery are not likely to be on the horizon anytime soon.

       However, in the meantime, we can use the First Amendment itself as an instrument of Justice. We can expose these demagogues for what they are and criticize constructively what they are saying and doing. Our wise Founding Fathers understood this principle, and our Christian morality teaches us that it is better to convert an opponent than to destroy them. If Emirjita Xhelili had seen what she was reading and hearing for what it really was, she never would have attacked the Moslem family. Instead, she's rotting in jail charged with a hate crime, while Alt-Right demagogues go on talking and writing---reveling in the publicity and laughing up their sleeves.



  1. Well that's appalling, certainly not the worst thing that has ever happened, but still awful. I don't fully understand how people become radicalized, but I know it is a real thing, that social engineering works, at least on those who are already having a hard time, seeking some ideology to pour into the abyss of their souls.

    I worry the most about young men, because that combination of group belonging, perceived power, and perceived sexual prowess is a powerful biological cocktail. Also, men are less risk adverse, more reckless, more willing to engage in extreme violence. At the same time, men within our culture are being somewhat displaced,losing power, cast outside the group and seeking to figure out where they belong.

    I'm the last one to ever advocate restrictions on speech, even manospherian speech, but I so wish some of these demagogues would consider the potential impact of their words and take responsibility for them.

    1. Those are all good points. These particular types of demagogues know exactly what psychological and sociological buttons to push to get the desired response.

      There is really no way there could be equitable legal restrictions on free speech; but J. Edgar Hoover's famous maxim was "Where there's smoke there's fire." Those who advocate illegal or immoral things are very probably engaging in them; exposure is what they fear the most.