Joe Gilbertson | Jun 20, 2022 | 12
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.
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.”