Sunday, January 6, 2013

Ban, Block and Report Walter James Casper III in 2013

Walter James Casper III was banned from this blog in April 2010. I wrote at the time that "I rarely ban radical leftist commentators" but that I was getting tired of Repsac's disgusting racism and rank stupidity. I'd also grown tired of this idiot's perpetual lies and taunting harassment even when proven wrong beyond any doubt. That's not debate or engagement. That's stalking and harassment. A few months back, after Walter Russell Mead prohibited commenting at Via Media, Vox Day wrote:

Walter James Casper
Vox Popoli is not, and will never be, an echo chamber. There are not, and will never be, any topics that are definitively outside the scope of permissible intellectual discourse ... The only commenters whose participation I will not tolerate is those who repeatedly lie, who demonstrate proven intellectual dishonesty, and who simply refuse to admit it when someone else has publicly shown them to be wrong. If you are not at least capable of acknowledging that you could be wrong about an idea, no matter how near and dear it is to you, then you will probably be better served commenting at a place where your ideas will not be questioned or criticized.
More than ever, that's key. The complete intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of a person who refuses to admit that, you know, he might have been wrong about something. It is, in a word, anti-intellectual. It's also morally bankrupt. That is why Walter James Casper III was banned.

Since then, Walter James Casper III has continued to stalk this blog, claiming "trolling rights" to comment here whenever he pleases. See: "F*** You, Douglas! — W. James Casper = COBAG = Repsac3!!" Of course, no one has a "right" to comment on someone else's blog. The right to freedom of speech guarantees freedom from discrimination by government. Repsac3, despite claiming worldly expertise on politics and government, just doesn't get a basic point --- indeed, has no clue --- of public goods theory or the politics of pooled resources. So here's a lesson.


In denying his stalking and harassment --- criminal activity of which I have reported to the police --- Repsac3 claims that he was only "submitting comments to an area open to public comment, in rebuttal of posts attacking me by name." See that? He was only harassing this blog on the justification that the commenting system here is an area "open for public comment." The problem, of course, is that there's no such thing as a "public" blog open to "public comments." Put aside the obvious fact that Blogger blogs are owned by Google and not the U.S. or any state government (and hence privately owned), the individual proprietor of a blog, even a Blogger blog, retains all the rights to allow any and all comments at the site. But for some reason, serial harassers have claimed a "trolling rights" theory to justify their despicable harassment of people with whom they disagree and of whom they wish to terrorize. And this is after being repeatedly warned to cease and desist, the legal threshold over which Repsac3's actions became criminal. Robert Stacy McCain identified this criminal activity in the case of Kimberlin-Rauhauser bully Bill Schmalfedlt. By developing a psychotic theory of "public commenting," radical leftist harassers delude themselves that they have a "right" to torment their targets. A blog, of course, is nothing like, say, a public park. Anyone can use the park, regardless of whether they contributed to the provision of that park, a public good, through tax contributions or user fees to the government agency responsible for providing that service. In other words, there are distinct realms of consumption of good and services. The oceans are common pool resources that no single nation-state owns. The public good problem is the incentive for one state to use more resources than it would be allowed under existing norms, regimes, or legal treaties. Even in this case, an otherwise common resource is nevertheless restricted in its use by state actors, otherwise the common resources --- say fisheries --- would be depleted. In sum, Walter James Casper III has invented a system of "public commenting" that only exists in the dark recesses of his addled and hateful mind. There is no right to comment on someone else's blog, no matter the kind of commenting system the blog uses. To this day racist Repsac3 is a raging, roiling hate-filled loser who rues the day that I switched to Disqus commenting, which has a fabulous black-listing system to ban persistent harassment trolls such as the dick Repmaster Troll. Suck it up and get used to it, asshole. You're banned.


Criminal harasser Repsac3, in his deranged world of never entertaining an idea that conflicts with his communist ideological program, has also developed a theory of generalizations which, when deployed, is purported to reject any argument about the obvious and inherent anti-social and collectivists tendencies of the radical left. With this theory, Repac3 can justify in his mind that progressive collectivism is a benign, benighted system of thinking, the correct ideology to lift the human race, bring peace, and end racism and poverty through "social justice." The facts, of course, are exactly the opposite, as over a century of history have shown with communist ideologies of the kind that Walter James Casper consumes and promotes in his radical political identity and activities.


Repsac3, at his Twitter profile, claims he's against "sweeping generalizations." Indeed, when union goons are repeatedly caught out as violent thugs, and when the union leadership advocates violence, union backer Repsac3 denounces the "sweeping generalizations," stupidly claiming that it's only "individuals" committing violent acts, not the unions. Of course idiot Repsac3's spouting illogical bullshit. To be clear, generalizations are a form of argument to explain general tendencies. To say that unions are violent and thuggish is a generalization that is repeatedly demonstrated as true. The examples of individual union members who do not engage in violence or thuggery don't disprove the generalization. If one says that "seat belts save lives" the claim is not invalidated by the example of someone being killed in a car crash despite wearing a seat beat. It's a clear generalization that is borne out by experience. Further, if one argues that progressives favor high taxes to fund a massive state sector of public services and transfer payments, and that these programs violate the liberty of Americans, the point is not invalidated by a few individuals who identify as progressive but don't favor higher taxes. Take Occupy Wall Street as one example that Walter James Casper III loves to defend by attacking "sweeping generalizations." Occupy is a movement that has been marked by violent protest and thousands of criminal arrests. It's own website declares, with a closed-fist icon of violent resistance, that it's a movement for a worldwide revolution and "is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia." The original founder of Occupy's New York mobilization, Kalle Lasn, is a proven Jew-basher and anti-Semite. And the initial Occupiers in the streets demonstrated widespread anti-Semitism on a daily basis and research shows that Jew-hatred is not a bug but a feature of the movement. A few Judeophile supporters of Occupy Wall Street do not disprove the generalization that the movement is anti-Semitic, despite the deranged and desperate bleatings of Repsac3 to the contrary. Indeed, the Democrat Party from President Obama and Nancy Pelosi on down has declared their solidarity with the Occupy movement, but polls have shown that only minorities of self-identified Democrats support or sympathize with Israel as an independent state with the right to self-defense. The generalization that Democrats ---- who are public backers of Occupy Wall Street --- don't support Israel is borne out by the data.

Again, the fact of some union members who are not violent thugs, or some individuals who are not violent Occupy activists, or who are strong supporters of Israel, does not disprove the generalizations. A generalization is a general pattern, a statement of a tendency. If "Hatesac" is bothered by the generalization of progressive violence and hatred and bigotry, perhaps he should reject those ideologies rather than defend them.



Walter James Casper III has used his hate-blog American Nihilist to publish my workplace information with exhortations for progressives to contact my college administration, with the obvious intent to get me fired for my conservative advocacy and allegedly politically incorrect statements. The widespread understanding among free speech advocates is that it's not appropriate to get someone fired because of their political views. But Repsac3 offered his co-bloggers front-page posting time to launch ideological attacks on my livelihood. The fact is that Repsac3 always had --- and still has --- editorial control over the contents published at his blog. If he didn't, then the post targeting me would still be available at the blog. (It has been edited by the blog administrator, Repsac3, to remove my contact information, as it should have been from the start, but wasn't.) Of course, it should have never been published in the first place, under any circumstances, and the "personal responsibility" for the post rests not with the author but with the person who provided the pixels at the front of the hate-blog, Walter James Casper, the blog publisher of American Nihilist. No amount of dodging can possibly escape the truth, which is why Repsac3 has been universally condemned for his intimidation campaigns among conservative bloggers and free speech advocates. See: (O)CT(O)PUS, "DEFAMATION - DONALD STYLE," February 12th, 2009. After Carl Salonen and SEK launched their vicious libel campaigns at my workplace, Repsac3 praised those attempts to get me fired, remarking that such attacks worked in having me no longer blogging about those pricks. By such actions, which are logically unsupportable, Repsac3 objectively backs efforts to shut down his political opponents and he in fact befriends and embraces some of the most vile criminal goons populating the left's intimidation networks. Further, as the left's campaigns of lawfare and workplace intimidation have become widespread, Repsac3 has repeatedly defended the hate and laughed off attacks on conservatives has "wingnut" whining. This utterly bankrupt behavior puts Reppie up there with the main Kimberlin-Rauhauser henchmen, like Schmalfeldt. See: "Pray for Ten Thousand Angels."

These activities grow from Walter James Casper III's radical ideological commitments, which I have documented in recent posts:

* "Communists Angela Davis and Danny Glover to Headline Democracy Now!'s Inauguration-Night 'Peace Ball' in Washington D.C."

* "Far-Left Whack-Job Thom Hartmann Wants to 'Outlaw Billionaires'."

* "Harvard Grad, Occupy Wall Street Activist Busted on Bomb-Making and Weapons Possession Charges."

So, for all of my readers and blog allies, remember that this is a dangerous ideological opponent and political enemy who is working to do harm to those with whom he disagrees. Like Zilla of the Resistance has advised, the best remedy is to ban these assholes, block them from your comments sections and block and report them on Twitter for stalking and intimidation.