What we have in all of the above is a strained attempt to turn Kyle Rittenhouse into a symbol of pathologized “whiteness.” Why weren’t the people he shot also symbols of whiteness? Gaige Grosskreutz, who testified on the stand that Rittenhouse shot at him only after he had aimed his own pistol at Rittenhouse, was an ACLU observer of the protest, and his concealed-carry license was expired. If we’re going to play this game, that set of facts seems pretty “white” to me. Why isn’t he on trial? Is that not a form of white privilege? Our experts on Kyle Rittenhouse’s “privilege” do not comment.
In a strange way, our psychotic commentariat is providing for Kyle Rittenhouse the inverse image of the “black rage” defense that was once employed in the trial of Colin Ferguson, who killed six and wounded 19 others on a train in New York in 1993. Yes, he had committed the killings, but he was driven temporarily insane by a racist society and so he was criminally non-liable, his lawyers argued.
Kyle Rittenhouse doesn’t have real emotions, apparently, because he’s “aligned with the ‘blue lives matter’ crowd.” He doesn’t have a right to self-defense or even the right to experience the emotion of fear when an ACLU “observer” points a pistol in his face — because of Brett Kavanaugh, or something. Being fearful when someone with an expired concealed-carry license points a gun in your face is actually threatening, the psychos explained.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member