Select Page

Rittenhouse Case and the Need for a “New Paradigm”

Rittenhouse Case and the Need for a “New Paradigm”

Rittenhouse Case and the Need for a “New Paradigm”: Understanding the history of Leftist thought and why Binger was against the right of self-defense and the right to protect one’s property and, therefore, the right to protect one’s livelihood. 

New Paradigm

This article wishes to illuminate the common theme of Leftist literature in a short article to explain the significance of the Rittenhouse trial in a broader context of the legal precedence it sought to establish. The Rittenhouse trial was much bigger than the specific incident.  

As Michael Yon said early in 2020, if one does not understand what is occurring in the United States over the past few years through the lens of their current “paradigm” of typical Democrat versus Republican politics, they need to adopt a “new paradigm” of understanding. 

This series of articles in Punchingbag offers the new paradigm of understanding by explaining the Rittenhouse Case in the context of ‘the history of Leftist thought and strategy’ from Rousseau to Marx and Engels of the past as it carries through to the present Antifa and BLM era.

The idea is that the more one understands the underpinnings of Leftist literature, the more one will understand the bizarre events that have been unfolding over the past few years and will more readily anticipate and assess future events.

Punchingbag does not want its’ readers stuck in a stultifying quandary.

The Aim of Rousseau and Subsequent Leftists

Since there are numerous alternative media channels on social media that have already analyzed the videos of the Kyle Rittenhouse shootings of Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz, the purpose of this series of articles is to place the Rittenhouse case in the broader sense of “the transformation of America” as promised by Obama during the 2008 election cycle and his presidency.  

The terms “transformation of society” has a specific meaning to the Left stemming from the French Philosophes in their endeavor to reform the French Ancien Regime in the decades leading up to the French Revolution, which led to “reign of terror” that was meant to literally kill-off the Aristocracy and level society.  

In short, Jean Jacque Rousseau in his “Discourse on the Inequality Among Men” (1755), attributed the economic inequality to the creation of property rights, which, to his reasoning, was used as a tool for men to subjugate other men into unequal relationships, and secondly, attributed the institution of marital rites to the political and legal subjugation of females by males. Hence, Leftist and feminist literature has attributed class and gender inequality to the advent of property rights and marital rites, respectively. 

Moreover, since the Ten Commandments include “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not commit adultery,” the inequality among the classes and genders by property rights and marital rites was a creation of the Patriarchal Abrahamic religions. Therefore, to attain an equal society, the West needed to obliterate Judeo-Christianity and replace religion with an atheistic secular legal and political system. 

Transformation of the legal system

It is the development of the new legal system with the diminution of property rights that the Left is currently pressing. Under the doctrine of Natural Right, the right of self-defense and protection of one’s property and livelihood was “natural” in the sense that it derived from the Ten Commandments and, therefore God.  Since the Left is an atheistic movement that does not believe in God, they do not believe in natural rights. To the Left, all “rights” derive from The State. 

As the first article explained Prosecutor Binger downplayed the destructive acts done by Rosenbaum in his closing argument that since only property was harmed, that no one had the right to stop him with any type of force whatsoever—Rittenhouse did not resort to lethal force until after he had tried to extinguish the fires that Rosenbaum had started, and after he had already retreated as Rosenbaum pursued him. 

The meaning is that once the lower levels of the use of force continuum are initiated, then force escalation is always a possibility, therefore, it must never be initiated in the first place. The case was meant to deter anyone from protecting themselves, their property, their house, or their businesses, which all add up to the point that the citizens do not have any legal right to protect their livelihoods in any capacity. 

Baltimore 2015—“give them room to destroy”

This has been the message of Blue city mayors since the Freddie Gray incident in Baltimore in April 2015, where Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake wanted to give the rioters “room to destroy.”

This “room to destroy” has become the norm in every Blue City and Blue State across the country after the George Floyd incident last year. The significance of the Rittenhouse case is that local citizens formed their own groups to fill the void of the police stand-downs, and Rittenhouse was prosecuted. 

It is increasingly clear that the Left wants the Antifa-BLM crowd to have the complete freedom to destroy anyone’s property and business that forms the basis of their livelihood without any resistance.

It means that the Left wants a very docile subject class that will passively watch their lives being destroyed by the state, or the mobs that are sanctioned by the state, and do nothing. “You will own nothing and you will be happy.” 

WI v. Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Day 10 – Prosecution Closing Argument by Thomas Binger Part 2

About The Author


  1. Kurt Walker

    This article, in my opinion, is right on track. I fully believe this administration has ONE thing in mind, One agenda. That is to bring this nation to DICTATORSHIP. If you carefully review the history of past nations the full picture is glaring. In order for those past nations to complete their rule of the people things had to happen by the numbers. First the medical system was controlled by the government, then the people had to be frightened into submission, and finally any means of personal protection had to be taken away. If you look at the direction of this administration the full picture jumps at you. The only means of defense is to meet force with force: REVOLUTION. You cannot meet force with complacency and hope to survive. I sincerely hope it doesn’t come to that but we are well on the way right now.

    • Clifford mckinney

      The left doesn’t give a damn about gun violence. If they did they would solve most of the problem and leave law abiding gun owners alone. It’s all about control of the people. We as a free society, so called, must never disarm no matter what. If they took our guns you can bet that the darlings of the left like antifa and BLM will remain armed. So I say keep our guns even if it means a bloody civil war. The 2nd amendment is worth fighting for. The democrats are to blame for the rise in violence. They won’t do a fucking thing to stop it. They live in lala land and it shows by the commie idiots that post on this site. Democracy is a wolf, fox and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. Real freedom is a well armed sheep.

  2. Ben

    I live when you CONservatives pick and choose bible verses. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. “
    We are not a christian Nation, we are a nation of laws.
    As far as the French go, they are on to something…

    • Chuck hicks

      Stfu fool.

      • Ben

        Make me bitch.

        • frank stetson

          Really Ben? As if you don’t bitch enough, you want Chuckie’s help? :>)

          • Ben

            Sure Frank,
            And you can get some too.

  3. Frankstetson

    If Trump couldn’t muster the stuff, complete with an insurrection, who is Joe gonna enlist?

    Confusion will be your epitaph.

  4. Rittenhouse was hit in the head with a wooden and metal skateboard. And a gun was pointed at him.

    Every piece of U.S. Currency has the words “In God We Trust”, so we Are a Christian Nation.
    We were founded that way. Reverence to God is woven into every piece of original documents.

    Rittenhouse was hit in the head with a wooden and metal skateboard. And a gun was pointed at him.
    AFTER Rittenhouse was attacked. He DEFENDED himself. As he SHOULD HAVE.

    Anyone that says they would have acted differently is either a LIAR, or would have become crippled, or dead.

    • Ben

      I would have acted differently. My children would be acted differently.

      There was no reason for an untrained child with a high powered rifle to be a situation that he was ill equipped to handle. He was failed by the “adults” in his life. He should have been safely at home.

      I was at home, my kids were at home. None of us were hit in the head, nor did we have to shoot anyone. Problem solved.

      As the Ahmad Abery prosecutors said, “ you go looking for trouble, you’re gunna find it… and it’s not going to end the way you think it is.” Until you wanta be vigilantes understand that there is no place in America for this type of behavior, the paradigm isn’t going to shift.

      • Clifford mckinney

        It looks like Kyle knew how to use the weapon. He’s had some training. And I’m proud of him. So stay home with your kids and Muslim daughter in law. I probably would too because I stay away from bad situations if I can. Just don’t bring the shit to me

        • Ben

          Thanks for the shout out to my daughter in law. She is pretty amazing.

          I’ve decided to make a small donation to CAIR in your ( and anyone else that would care to mention her) name. This accomplished two things, it genuinely helps bring awareness to Muslim bigotry and gets a bigoted Republican’s name associated with a pro Muslim advocacy group. Win/win!

          Im shocked that there is a brain cell in your head, staying out of civil unrest is the best course of action. Unfortunately when you go into a volition situation, you bring the shit to yourself. While your boy may have been trained in marksmanship, he was not trained in how to act/ react to civil unrest. And for that he spent 87 days in jail, untold hrs in court, and thousands in legal defense.

          If you want to add your address, I’ll put it in the donation remarks so you can receive a proper thank you

          • Clifford mckinney

            So you’re saying that Kyle should have submitted to being murdered. You really are a stupid asshole. And he’s getting help with his legal expenses. Not go fund me, but he’s being funded. The case should never had came to trial

        • Ben

          Cliff, I confess to being an asshole. I may also be stupid, but not stupid enough to let my underage child go to an area of civil unrest to murder for sport. So I got that going for me.

          The child you’re so proud of need not submit to being murder, just submit to his mother telling him that he wasn’t allowed outside to play with his friends that night because, as my Dad used to say,” those guys are gunna lead you to trouble”.
          Regardless of who is paying for legal defense, Kyle is now being played by CONservatives in a world he can’t even begin to understand.

          I am happy to hear that he supports BLM now. Looks like you two have supporting minorities in common!

          And damn this site! Why was there no reply button to your last post?

          • Clifford mckinney

            I don’t know why no reply button. But if Kyle was at home, would you be ok with him shooting them if they attempted to attack him there?

  5. frank stetson

    “Stultifying quandary.” Now there’s a term to consider. Bad enough to have a quandary, but for it to be stultifying….oh my :>) No, this is about re-litigating Crybaby Kyle’s actions, the jury has spoken, he is innocent using self defense as his defense, in case folks miss that and are still reviewing the tapes.

    Thanks to George, I now understand the deeper meanings of Democratic existence stretching back to the French in the second half of the 1700’s. That’s cool. Putting Rousseau together with Marx/Engels, interesting. I am having trouble accepting Rousseau alone, but Marx and Engels….nice try.

    I found myself in a stultifying quandary so I went to George’s main point, “the transformation of America,” to which he accredits all sorts of weird stuff. Instead, I thought, “why not go to the source,” and see exactly what Obama said. It appears it is somewhat different to George’s treatise, to the point of seemingly discrediting George’s points: each and every one. Here’s EXACTLY what Obama meant. From Politifact:

    “During his pre-Super Bowl interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, President Barack Obama faced a question about “fundamentally transforming” the country.
    Obama answered by saying, “I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation.”
    This prompted a flurry of questions on social media, since it seemed to contradict a statement Obama had made during his first Oval Office run in 2008.

    We decided that we couldn’t put this statement to the Truth-O-Meter, since the definition of “fundamentally transform” is too vague.
    Still, we thought it would be useful to provide the two quotes in question side by side. So we will do so here.

    Interview with Bill O’Reilly, Feb. 2, 2014

    O’Reilly: OK. I got a letter from Kathy LaMaster, Fresno, Calif. I said I would read one letter from the folks, all right?
    Obama: All right.
    O’Reilly: “Mr. President, why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?”
    Obama: I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation.
    O’Reilly: But those are your words.
    Obama: I think that what we have to do is make sure that here in America, if you work hard, you can get ahead. Bill, you and I benefitted from this incredible country of ours, in part, because there were good jobs out there that paid a good wage, because you had public schools that functioned well, that we could get scholarships if we didn’t come from a wealthy family, in order to go to college.
    O’Reilly: Right.
    Obama: That, you know, if you worked hard, not only did you have a good job, but you also had decent benefits, decent health care…
    O’Reilly: They’re cutting me off…
    Obama: — and for a lot of folks, we don’t have that. We’ve got to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to expand the middle class…
    O’Reilly: All right…
    Obama: — and work hard and people who are working hard can get into the middle class.
    O’Reilly: I think — I — you know, I know you think maybe we haven’t been fair, but I think your heart is in the right place.

    Here’s Obama’s original statement, in an October 2008 campaign visit to Columbia, Mo:

    “Now, Mizzou, I just have two words for you tonight: five days. Five days. After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that’s taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

    “In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street. In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor.”

    Oh my, I see Marx and Engels all over that stuff. Not.