What plot twist could make the unseemly events in Portland turn into a moment of sufficient farce that even the New York Times would notice that the protesters in Portland were still there even after the federal agents, who were the real reason for the renewed outrage until they weren’t, were forgotten? All it took was the Proud Boys to show up.
A group of about 200 protesters, including members of the Proud Boys and families supporting the police, gathered along the courthouse sidewalk beginning at 11 a.m. Many of them were holding American flags, while others carried assault rifles and wore tactical military gear.
Almost immediately, a similar number of Black Lives Matter protesters gathered across the street, many dressed in all black and carrying shields or paintball guns.
Apparently, no members of Antifa were involved, or the Times would surely have mentioned it, since they would be journalistically remiss to leave out such a fact, particularly since they found it critical to note that the pro-police team included Proud Boys.
Within an hour, shouting turned to violence.
It’s hard to imagine what an hour’s worth of shouting was like between these groups, although it would appear that the BLM protesters, whose mostly peaceful right to protest has launched a thousand arguments, didn’t seem willing to fight for the right of the Proud Boys to protest, even though they disagreed with their message.
While noting that some of the Proud Boys carried “assault rifles,” whatever that means, “violence” followed.
Paintballs flew between the two sides. Bottles soared back and forth. Shoves became punches. As protesters who were struck with pepper spray moved back, others came forward to take their place.
Both sides throw things at each other pic.twitter.com/KZzgVkJQZ7
— Sergio Olmos (@MrOlmos) August 22, 2020
As for the Portland police, under a progressive Dem mayor and governor, they demurred.
All the while, police officers watched from a distance and chose not to intervene.
The Portland Police Bureau said in a news release that it did not declare a riot because it had limited personnel for the number of protesters and weapons present.
The statement said that weeks of “violent actions directed at the police” were “a major consideration for determining if police resources are necessary to interject between two groups with individuals who appear to be willingly engaging in physical confrontations for short durations.”
The situation was, of course, ironic for police, whose existence is at issue by one side, which simultaneously expects the cops to come to their defense. And they should have, despite the “abolish” demand being a putative core purpose of the group of protesters, dedicated to preventing the other group of protesters from exercising their right to protest.
Then again, there’s a certain symmetry to two groups looking for a confrontation and finding it. On the other hand, the police responsibility to keep the peace isn’t dependent on how much they like the warring tribes or their sense of schadenfreude. Even if they’re just worn out and unwilling to become embroiled in this battle, that’s the nature of their job.
But what brought the conservative team out to protest?
Susan Schaffer, who lives in Portland and joined the pro-police rally, said she was mortified by Mr. Floyd’s death. Still, she said she thought the protests had been allowed to continue for too long and with too much leniency from local leaders.
Karen Mann, who came to join the protesters from Salem, said she was partly inspired to attend when her house was egged after she put a Trump sign in her yard.
“Why can’t I say I support Trump? I should be able to do that without being intimidated,” she said. “They really want to destroy everyone who is center-right or center.”
Of course, supporting Trump and putting out a Trump sign is, in itself, provocation to violence to those dressed in all black. But unreported, either in this story or the New York Times at all, is that the protests, which were supposedly limited to a couple blocks in downtown Portland that didn’t destroy anyone’s life except some immigrant business people who should be happy to take a bullet for white radicals fighting for justice, had spread.
The Portland protesters shine lights into houses in the neighborhood, calling on everyone to come out and march with them as they make their way back towards Keaton Park #Portland #PortlandProtest pic.twitter.com/N5SGmlLczO
— Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) August 21, 2020
For reasons that only make sense if you’re spectacularly woke, this seemed like a great idea to get people to come over to your side, or at least be too afraid that their house would be torched to take issue with their cause. And for those not as privileged as to be able to hide behind the walls of their home, the message was taken to the streets as well.
— Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) August 23, 2020
The New York Times neglected to include this in their story as well. They must have filed too early for the guillotine, as well as the subsequent riots in Denver.
— Marc Sallinger (@MarcSallinger) August 23, 2020
To win in November, will Joe Biden feel constrained to court these voters and those who make excuses for why their breaking windows is what’s needed to get the people elected to office to cave in to the demands of young people in black with a guillotine?
It’s not about supporting Trump, although opposing the Dems is not a justification to be subject to destruction and violence by the righteous, but about the alternative being rioters, looters and kids dressed in black who believe a guillotine reflects the future.
Granted, Biden and Harris were interviewed by ABC’s David Muir and Robin Roberts, which will air this evening, and were asked whether they support “defund police.” Biden laughed in reply, while Harris played bobblehead with her resting prosecutor face.
If the guillotine is meant for Trump first, will Biden be next? Has the Overton Window of social justice reached the point where the woke believe that any beef can be resolved by a riot, making it too costly in destruction to disagree with their demands to make a nation submit to their Utopian vision of justice? Or at least, their flavor of justice.
Biden’s election is grounded in a promise to return to sanity, which sounds nice even if it leaves a lot to the imagination about what a sane nation would look like in the aftermath of Trump. The progressives appear determined not to let that happen on Trump’s watch. Will they let it happen if the watch is turned over to Biden?
Will the children sleeping in the nice houses in the suburb whose parents were once sympathetic to BLM be allowed to enjoy their lives unmolested by the chanting of “wake up, motherfuckers” in the middle of the night? We may never know, since it’s not newsworthy enough to appear in the New York Times, until it comes to a neighborhood near you.