An example of leftist hypocrisy as well.
Some time ago, I wrote about “The Bunker Syndrome,” an affliction that characterizes many Whites of rightist inclinations. You have White folks with healthy instructs about race and culture, but they are unwilling to actually do anything productive about it. Rather than attempting to actualize their beliefs in the real world, and engage in activism, they’ll just spout some “bigoted” remarks, or “act out” in public, accomplishing nothing except making themselves (and others who share their beliefs) look bad.
Let’s consider this situation. Yes, a New York lawyer named “Aaron Schlossberg” raises questions as to his ancestry – or should we say (((ancestry))) – but that’s irrelevant to the main issues at hand. Ignore that Levantine possibility for the time being, and let’s look at this through the paradigm prism of “a ‘White’ person making rightist, politically incorrect comments.”
Now, the persecution of Schlossberg is wrong, but his behavior is a perfect example of The Bunker Syndrome – lots of loud “acting out” of “bigoted” opinions but no actualization of his views in the real world. Indeed, we read, emphasis added:
The website for Schlossberg says he is a lawyer with a focus on commercial and insurance law and notes that he speaks Spanish and some French, Mandarin Chinese and Hebrew, in addition to English. His law office advertises that it can take phone calls in four foreign languages, an irony that was not lost on many commentators on social media.
If Mr. Schlossberg feels so strongly about the sanctity of public English speaking, then perhaps his law office should only have accepted phone calls in that language? More to the point, if he feels so strongly about immigration, illegal immigration, immigration enforcement, rightist politics, and cultural preservation, then, instead of public displays of Bunkerism, he could have used his legal training to help those on the Right, instead of practicing “commercial and insurance law” for a “vibrant” clientele. Even if he didn’t want to help any “anti-Semitic Nazis” there are those on the Right who would welcome him – indeed, the Alt Wrong would much prefer a New York lawyer named “Aaron Schlossberg” over some greasy low-IQ Afrowop or some Romanian dancing the hora (long may it turn). Then there is the whole Alt Light, the Paleocons, and the Donald Cuck administration. There’s a wide range of opportunities for someone with legal training to help the Right, instead of acting like a jackass in a restaurant.
This is the problem with all the “Bunkers.” They’ll say this or that but not actually DO anything productive in the political or metapolitical sphere to advance their beliefs. In fact, their "acting out” typically has the consequences (apart from harming themselves) of delegitimizing their beliefs and generating (undeserved) sympathy for the targets of their ire. They are not even helping to promote racial balkanization, since their behavior is a dead end resulting in the aforementioned sympathy for their targets, and embarrassment for those who share their basic beliefs. There is no real “heightening of the contradictions” here. That Black guy who walked into a restaurant with a MAGA hat and got harassed actually did more to promote balkanization than did Schlossberg yelling about calling ICE on some Spanish speakers.
In comment threads in articles about Schlossberg, one sees the typical leftist mantra that spews forth when anyone with rightist sympathies is subjected to oppressive social pricing: “free speech has consequences” and “free speech protections of the First Amendment only refer to a lack of government persecution and have nothing to do with private consequences” etc. These same leftist hypocrites (redundancy) were silent however when Fresno State claimed an inability to discipline NEC land whale Jarrar due to…drum roll please…free speech and the First Amendment. And keep in mind Jarrar’s antics not only included the public comments about “amazing racist” Barbara Bush but also the incident with the ASU hotline number. Consequences for any of that? Absolute zero. Consequences for Schlossberg expressing his private opinion in a private setting? Kicked out of his office and having elected officials submitting complaints for him to be disbarred.
There are some on the Left who call those on the Far Right “hypocrites” on the free speech issue because, as they say, “if you guys were in charge, you wouldn’t allow free speech.” Of course, leftists accusing others of hypocrisy is breathtaking….well, hypocrisy, as well as an insane level of projection. But as to the “accusation?” Fair enough…if I were in power, I wouldn’t allow free speech for the Left; they would be silenced just as they now silence the Right. But it is not “hypocrisy” because a Sallis State would not pretend to be a “democracy” with a “First Amendment” and would not engage in dishonorable cant about “freedom” to justify interfering with the sovereignty of other nations. A Sallis State would also not cherry-pick law enforcement nor would it engage in cowardly techniques of social pricing (also applied in a cherry-picked, inconsistent manner) in order to evade the letter and spirit of the law.
The Left does not respect freedom of expression in the context of a “democracy” centered on a “Bill of Rights” (and Europe is even worse). So, why should they expect the Far Right to respect freedom of expression in a national socialist authoritarian state? Are they delusional or merely retarded?
In any case: if there are rightist lawyers (or other useful professionals) out there, please learn from the Schlossberg case. We don’t need more Archie Bunkers. The Bunkers didn’t save America from being transformed and destroyed. We don’t need you spouting off in a restaurant, we need you in a courtroom (or wherever your skills can be best utilized) advocating for the Right.