Considering that looting or destroying a person’s property is illegal, immoral, and can be life-altering for the individuals involved, I find it almost incomprehensible that an author would write a book defending looting and couch it in terms used mostly by socialist/communist social justice warriors.

The book is called “In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action” and features a crowbar on the cover. A closer look reveals it is pseudo-intellectual, down with the revolution clap-trap, apparently written by an angry transgendered man who now appears to present as a woman.


When I encounter a phrase like “cisheteropatriarchal racial capitalist society,” I am triggered and all I see are red flags.

Is the author’s name a pseudonym?

[OCS: It appears that the author is a transgendered individual (a man now behaving like a woman) and much of their history may reside under a former name.]

Is the author an academic with an advanced degree operating in an educational environment where artificial constructs are often assigned the weight of reality?

[OCS:  Unknown – but unlikely]

Is the author associated with a “studies” program whose basic premise is that America is bad, America needs to be punished, American need a radical transformation, and American needs to serve-up reparations for those whose ancestors may have been historically aggrieved?

[OCS:  Unknown – but unlikely]

Is the author associated with any racial, sexual, or political advocacy effort?

[OCS:  Unknown – but possible.]

Is the author down with the socialist or communist ideal of revolution, where a society’s governance, institutions, economy, and culture along with an individual’s inalienable rights and freedoms must be totally obliterated in order to bring about an impossible enlightened society governed by experts for the benefit of all of the people?

[OCS:  From their writings, it appears that the author is down with the revolution.]

What are the author’s motivations? Academic credit in a publish or perish academic environment? Peer recognition and plaudits? Lecture fees? Book sales? Media appearances. Or all of the above?

[OCS:  It appears that the author is a professional writer, which leaves the profit and recognition motives along with credit as a social justice warrior.]

To be fair to the author, here is the passage in full …

Looting is so unpopular not because it is an error or bad for the movement but because it is often a movement’s most radical tactic.

Looting attacks some of the core beliefs and structures of cisheteropatriarchal racial capitalist society, and so frightens and disturbs nearly everyone, even some of its participants.

After all, we have all been raised and trained to hold, follow, and reproduce those beliefs every day. Looting rejects the legitimacy of ownership rights and property, the moral injunction to work for a living, and the “justice” of law and order. Looting reveals all these for what they are: not natural facts, but social constructs benefiting a few at the expense of the many, upheld by ideology, economy, and state violence.

That looting is one of the most racially loaded, morally abhorred, and depoliticized concepts in modern society should come as no surprise. From its very first usages, the word has served to re-enforce the white supremacist juncture of property and race.

-- Vicky Osterweil, In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action

(ISBN: 781645036692

It doesn't take a major leap of faith to know that I have entered George Orwell's land of "newspeak" and "doublethink" or Alice in Wonderland’s topsy-turvy world…

Newspeak, where language is used to "deliberately obscure, disguise, distort, or reverse the meaning of words" And doublethink, the "process of indoctrination whereby the subject is expected to accept as true that which is clearly false or to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in contravention to one's own memories or sense of reality."

Or Alice in Wonderland's "topsy-turvy" world where fantasy reigns and the rules of reality disappear." A landscape where left is right, up is down, right is wrong, evil is good -- and the immoral suddenly becomes moral.

Whoever the author may be, they are intellectually dishonest, in some cases grossly inaccurate…

WHEN DARREN WILSON GUNNED DOWN MIKE BROWN FOR THE CRIME of being Black in the middle of the street, Wilson’s actions represented no great break with American history, no change in the nature of American policing. When the Ferguson Police Department left Brown’s body lying in the middle of the road for four hours, they practiced an anti-Black white terrorism as old as the country. But when Brown’s friends, family, and community rose up and fought back, when they rioted, looted, marched, occupied, and organized in the streets of Ferguson, they pulled us toward a definitive break with that history. The riots in Ferguson gave birth to a new era of militant resistance in America, the reemergence of the long movement for emancipation and Black liberation.”

The truth is far different. The Officer did not gun down Michael Brown for being black. That statement appears to be both untrue and libelous. Michael Brown was a criminal who had just perpetrated a strong-arm act at a local convenience store. He was confronted by an officer of the law and attacked the officer, trying to grab the officer’s weapon when he was shot the first time. Brown retreated, and for whatever twisted reason, attacked the officer again which resulted in the fatal shot. The officer was cleared of any wrongdoing by local, state, and federal authorities. The lie that Brown was shot while his hands were in the air was disproved by witness accounts and forensic evidence.

We can no longer let the police, that despicable occupying army, seem “natural,” nor let anyone paint resistance to the settler state as an enemy of peace. Their peace is the peace of the grave.”

Despicable occupying army? The truth is that the police, the overwhelming majority of whom are respectful of the law and willing to sacrifice their lives to protect citizens, is what stands between criminals and the thugs preying on the law-abiding members of the community.

When it comes to small business, family owned business or locally owned business, they are no more likely to provide worker protections. They are no more likely to have to provide good stuff for the community than big businesses.”

Even small, family-owned businesses are attacked without regard to the fact that they are vital to providing goods and services to the community. And to the extent their prices may be higher than major shopping outlets, one must consider economies of scale, buying power, and the increased costs of operating in a neighborhood that may have a higher proportion of criminal activity.

About the author…

It is hard to research the origins of someone who only exists on paper. According to her publisher, “Vicky Osterweil is a writer, editor, and agitator and a regular contributor to the New Inquiry. Her writing has also appeared in the Baffler, the Nation, Real Life, and Al Jazeera America. She lives in Philadelphia.” However, a little additional research tends to indicate that she is a transgender woman who describes herself as a ‘writer, editor, and agitator’ and whose Twitter handle is ‘Vicky_ACAB’ (All Cops Are Bastards). Her Tweets are locked.

Bottom line…

Of course, there is a simple way to solve the problems with large-scale looters and arsonists —shoot them on sight.  Spray them with indelible dye and pick them up as they attempt to penetrate a preset perimeter.

But the real problem is the progressive socialist democrats and their RINO cohorts, politicians and legislators who are “soft on crime,” lest they anger their base.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell