After 4 painfully long days of deliberation, where protestors gathered outside the court to pressurize a guilty verdict and a reporter on assignment from the MSNBC news network reportedly followed the jury’s bus setting the tone of intimidatory doxing, the jury of twelve in the most watched court case in history delivered its verdict. Kyle Rittenhouse was found innocent of all charges.
This did not stop the lying and political hysteria from the cultural elite, with the left predictably making two simultaneous statements: that there is no justice for the downtrodden victim, and that the just response is to start more riots.
The intellectual midget Bill De Blasio, mayor of New York, was quick to blame the system and call for some sort of who nows. He did this while sanctifying a 5 times child rapist. Just think about how degenerate you have to be to make this case
Mayor Bill de Blasio on Twitter: “Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum are victims. They should be alive today. The only reason they’re not is because a violent, dangerous man chose to take a gun across state lines and start shooting people. To call this a miscarriage of justice is an understatement.” /Twitter
Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum are victims. They should be alive today.
The only reason they’re not is because a violent, dangerous man chose to take a gun across state lines and start shooting people.
To call this a miscarriage of justice is an understatement. https://t.co/TwaI2ghgM5
— Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) November 19, 2021
The left are losing their mind because this went away from them. Possibly a symptom of residing in an impenetrable bubble with a corporate media fed feedback loop of delusion and lies watered by wild sanctimonious self flattery.
So what did actually happen over the trial and what does it tell us about American society and about justice itself?
For anyone who followed the case this exoneration was a realistic result, and anything else would have been a gross miscarriage of justice.
The case falls apart.
It wasn’t until the day of closing statements that the Judge in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse dismissed the weapons possession charges against the defendent, as the gun held by Rittenhouse on the night of the riots in which he shot three people was lawfully held by the teenager according to Wisconsin law.
The fact that it took the entire case to clear up something so elementary doesn’t say much about the due diligence of the defence team. Ironically, possibly the best players on the defence team in this case were, in fact, the prosecutors.
The possession of the weapon used by Rittenhouse was a central plank in the prosecution’s case, and was used to prejudice the public against the teenager in the creation of a narrative of a trigger-happy racist shooter who was there to “hunt people down”.
The case against Rittenhouse – shaky to begin with, and heightened by an intense media campaign of misinformation – was really over by the time the prosecution had presented their case. Five of the state’s witnesses backed up the narrative that Rittenhouse acted in self defence, with reporter Richie McGinniss providing one of the most devastating witness responses in the history of court cases. The Matthew McConaughey look-alike’s cool as a cucumber response to the prosecutor’s ludicrous badgering could not have been scripted better for effect.
Binger: “So your interpretation of what he was trying to do, or what he was intending to do, or anything along those lines, is complete guess work isn’t it?”
McGinniss: “Well he said ‘Fuck You’ and then he reached for the weapon”
Prosecutor: “So your interpretation of what [Rosenbaum] was trying to do… is complete guesswork.” @RichieMcGinniss: “Well, he said ‘fuck you’ and then he reached for the weapon.” pic.twitter.com/NK6Sbfh8vy
— Jordan Chamberlain (@jordylancaster) November 4, 2021
This was in relation to the shooting of a convicted paedophile, Joseph Rosenbaum, who was taking part in the riots that night and who cornered and attacked Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. Rosenbaum was the first person Rittenhouse shot and within 3 minutes of this Rittenhouse, who was trying to get to a police line to surrender to authorities, shot two more people who made attempts on his life.
Given the evidence, this should have been case over and dismissed with prejudice, but there was more to come.
The states star witness, a Mr Gaigue Grosskreutz, who was shot in the arm by Rittenhouse admitted under cross examination that the shooting only happened after he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse.
Viva Frei on Twitter: “Rittenhouse trial should be over immediately. https://t.co/PHZnHS5rD9” / Twitter
Rittenhouse trial should be over immediately. pic.twitter.com/PHZnHS5rD9
— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) November 8, 2021
There were many more mike drop moments from the state’s witnesses including a photographer who testified that the prosecutions lawyers tried to get him to change his testimony.
What is interesting about this trial was that all of the cultural institutions had this guy Rittenhouse in their sights, and were determined to spin a narrative around the case and make an example of him. Not just Twitter randos and the odd blue check neo-lib, but the entirety of the left wing media, and entertainment complex – in short nearly all of the corporate cultural oligarchy.
To European observers, images of the teenager armed with a large gun might mean the immediate assumption of guilt. In the US, however, a right to bear arms exists. In this instance, the defence states it was being exercised to prevent violent rioting, looting and wanton destruction. In fact Rittenhouse was not the only person guarding businesses from arsonists that night with guns. He was just one of a large number of volunteers who came down in response to the burning and rioting that had occurred the previous night, and they had done so at the request of local businesses (many of them immigrant owned) and residents.
Journalists know this, yet they maintained a sustained campaign to defame Rittenhouse, and outright lie about him.
Media: Why do reporting when we already know Rittenhouse is a terrorist? pic.twitter.com/abebdPyiIs
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 9, 2021
All of the above talking heads spun an ugly defamatory raft of lies about Rittenhouse, using all the moral panic buzz words of “white supremacy” “militia” “racism” “Ar-15” and of course “Trumpism”. Like sharks in bloody water they indulged in a frenzy of defamatory lies precisely because they thought the slaughter would be thorough and there would be no recriminations.
The widely circulated fable that he was driven across state lines, with a gun, by his mother, is demonstrably false, and it is hard to believe that the entire sequence of highly paid media spinners above did not know that.
Reviewing the narrative that has been pushed in the trial by media, there has been a stubborn perspective on this whole event that Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there, and was therefore guilty of something.
This is a pre-judgment by the elitist left.
This sounds (un)surprisingly like the pernicious “well young lady why were you wearing such a short skirt and so drunk the night you were assaulted” argument.
As has frequently been pointed out, the left accuse others of what they want to do, and frequently do, themselves.
Far left ice cream grifters (you know it’s far left because its overpriced), never slow to play to their audience, jumped on the bandwagon as if it was a sure fire payload.
TheLastRefuge on Twitter: “Far Left Company Ben and Jerry&#8217;s Push False Rittenhouse Narrative https://t.co/cSKKs8CDn4” / Twitter
Far Left Company Ben and Jerry’s Push False Rittenhouse Narrativehttps://t.co/cSKKs8CDn4
— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) November 13, 2021
Maybe they will be paying a load in libel! It is to be hoped they and the lying media do as the division they sow for pure commercial purposes is tearing society apart.
The left are saying by implication, and sometimes outright, that if a violent mob starts burning your town or community, and murdering people, you should leave them alone because their intentions are noble.
This is the social-justice narrative spin on the violent riots of 2020, which left over 30 murdered people on the streets of America. The reason the term “social-justice” is a hyphenation of a fundamental adjective is that it is by nature different. In fact social-justice is diametrically different to justice.
The plan is to replace justice (blind justice who wields the scales of evidence to determine guilt or innocence) with a completely new conception. It sounds a bit like justice but it is a perversion of that principle.
Social justice judges that the proclaimed “ends” are the scales by which you judge the means. This conception of “equity” we hear about -of placing a finger on the scales of opportunity to help out the disadvantaged- is the principle of social-justice, and its proponents would lock up the innocent to even out the pain felt by the disadvantaged.
The fact that Rittenhouse appeared innocent of the charges of murder is irrelevant to this principle. The media were trying him as an avatar of some equity principle, and Rittenhouse, a working class (meaning fair game for abuse) kid, was supposed to be a sacrificial scapegoat.
A scapegoat as, René Girard postulated in his groundbreaking thesis on the scapegoat mechanism, is an innocent on which a resentful society, jealous of its successful members, vents its frustrations on. The more innocent the victim, the more thorough the mob pours its vitriol and violence upon him or her. The venting of this resentment according to Girard, is a release valve on a dangerous dysfunction that continually threatens society.
The innocence of Rittenhouse is irrelevant to this process. In fact it’s probably desirable.
Before the social justice movement, Rittenhouse is a sacrificial scapegoat and the most powerful institutions in the land are egging on his public sacrifice. It has been said that the right to self defense is on trial here. That’s true, but the narrative suggestively weaved by the prosecution through their questioning and propositions is that common law itself is in the dock. The evidence was clearly exonorative of Rittenhouse, but the narrative subtly implied by the prosecutor is a reinforcement of a conviction held by the “progressive” left; that justice must be applied unevenly in order to build a “just” society.
Again we have an adjective “just” that we understand, and which the “progressives” use. But the “progressive” definition of “just” is completely different to that we understand from our Christian-inspired enlightenment perspective.
Rittenhouse is the example of the type of person that must be purged, and any means of purge is justified. One of the most notable progressives of the 20th Century, Extreme leftist Nickolai Bukharin, explains how this works.
Bukharin once said: “Proletarian compulsion in all its forms, beginning with summary execution and ending with compulsory labor is, however paradoxical it may sound, a method of reworking the human material of the capitalist epoch into Communist humanity.”
That’s concentration camps and blood soaked “cleansing” in layman’s terms. It’s actually a process that many extreme leftists still believe in; as Project Veritas have uncovered.
Bukharin was later cancelled (as in executed) by Beria in 1938 (the infamous soviet torturer of “show me the man I’ll find you the crime” fame). Beria was in turn cancelled by Georgy Zhukov. Zhukov, the marshal of Russia who saved his country from the invading Nazis, was possibly too popular amongst the military to be cancelled in a public show trial, so he was quietly deplatformed and retired to house arrest in the country.
Yes, leftist mob behaviours are literally that predictable!
As the closing arguments in the Rittenhouse trial were made, the prosecution arguments descended into outright ludicrous. Once again they put the right to self defence on trial.
Binger put it that “you lose the right of self defence when you’re the one who brought the gun”
Greg Price on Twitter: “What. The. Actual. Fuck Binger: “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun.” https://t.co/2pu7lehnBx” / Twitter
What. The. Actual. Fuck
Binger: "You lose the right to self-defense when you're the one who brought the gun." pic.twitter.com/2pu7lehnBx
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 15, 2021
The assistant DA, James Krause, in an offensively stupid construction of logic, claimed that Rittenhouse was a coward for not using his fists to fight his way out.
Viva Frei on Twitter: ““…he was too cowardly to use his fists” is one of the worst arguments against self-defence I could imagine the prosecution using. And yet, they used it. https://t.co/mlhCp7fwmY” / Twitter
“…he was too cowardly to use his fists” is one of the worst arguments against self-defence I could imagine the prosecution using. And yet, they used it. pic.twitter.com/mlhCp7fwmY
— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) November 15, 2021
He also said that “sometimes you have got to take a beating”
We are supposed to agree with the lying corporate media that the average citizen should just stand back and make way for violent neo-marxist mobs when they decide to go on a riot. The implicit bias here is that leftists’ causes are just, and if you object you are a piece of garbage who deserves to have your head bashed in with a skateboard or chain (two of the weapons which were used on Rittenhouse in the 3 minute chase on the night) or whatever weapon they decide to bring. No matter how depraved the attacker, he/she/ze/it is always right.
As a reminder, the Rosenbaum attack and the chase happened because Rittenhouse was trying to extinguish an arson attempt on a garage. This is what enraged the mob. This is what the lying media have concealed for over a year. This trial is one more exhibit in the case that the corporate media should be viewed with the same contempt as the average tobacco executive. They lie to you and they mean you harm.