Kyle Rittenhouse Isn't a White Supremacist, but What if He Were?

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

First, let’s get this out of the way: white supremacy — like any philosophy of hate or discrimination based on immutable characteristics — is stupid, ignorant, and evil. This article is not a defense of white supremacy. We don’t roll like that at PJ Media.

The accusations of “white supremacy” leveled at Kyle Rittenhouse before, during and after his trial, by the biggest names in the country from D.C. to Hollywood, were defamatory and prejudicial. The current president of the United States himself used a picture of Kyle in a 2020 campaign tweet that purported to show images of “white supremacy”:

There is no evidence to back up these ugly claims. Kyle himself is a BLM supporter. The most the anti-Kyle crowd could come up with was a photo of him with two Proud Boys he chanced to meet immediately after being released on bail. In the image, Kyle is making an “okay” sign with his hand, which prosecutors pounced upon and called a white-power symbol but is more often used to troll the hypersensitive. Personally, if I were being railroaded and terrorized at age 17 and someone reached out to show me support, I’d probably also have taken a dopey picture with them. (And no, the Proud Boys aren’t a “white supremacist” organization, either.)

Related: Kyle Rittenhouse Says He ‘Supports the BLM Movement’ in Tucker Carlson Interview

Nonetheless, people who are convinced that Rittenhouse is indeed a white supremacist are also howling that he should not have been acquitted. Yet, a jury of his peers considered overwhelming evidence that he fired in self-defense and determined that he had acted lawfully. One can only deduce that the rage crowd believes the law should have been applied differently to Kyle Rittenhouse because of what they decided his opinions are. That’s terrifying.

It’s terrifying first of all because anyone who disagrees with the precepts of Critical Race Theory nowadays is labeled a “white supremacist” — even if they’re not even white. All you have to do is offend the left, and you are lumped in with the KKK and the Nazi Party. And so, the rage mongers believe that the majority of U.S. citizens are “white supremacists” and therefore not worthy of equal protection under the law.

But it’s also terrifying because it represents criminalization of politically incorrect speech and thought.

Let’s say an actual scumbag white supremacist named, I don’t know, Brandon, was attacked by criminally insane rioters. Let’s say the goons chased him, knocked him to the ground, kicked him in the face, whacked him in the noggin with a skateboard, and charged at him with pistol drawn. Brandon, who had been armed all this time, rightfully feared for his life and fired upon his assailants, killing two and wounding one. Should Brandon still be acquitted because he acted in self-defense?

In the United States of America, the correct answer is yes. Brandon may be an antisocial moron who wrongly believes white people are better than other people, but that doesn’t change the law.

What if Brandon were a black supremacist? Or a Hispanic supremacist? Or an Asian supremacist? Or an annoying, pampered douche? Should he still be acquitted?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. In the United States, the 14th Amendment to our Constitution codifies that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (emphasis added)

But what if Brandon said really racist, rotten, bigoted things? What if he made a white power hand signal and he really meant it?

The answer is still yes, he should be acquitted. The very first amendment to our Constitution guarantees that Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech.” So, as repugnant as it may be sometimes, free speech is 100% a “privilege of citizens of the United States.” It is expressly unconstitutional to apply laws unequally to anyone because of something they said.

But sadly, to the left, civil liberties are so yesterday. Not that long ago at all, the American Civil Liberties Union notably defended the free speech rights of the actual KKK. Nowadays, the ACLU may as well change its name to the American Civil Rights Union, as they have become much more interested in prioritizing an overzealous, biased reading of the Civil Rights Act over the actual founding documents.

“I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it” was once a universal American creed. From cancel culture to lawfare persecution, the left today strives to destroy anyone who gets in their way. Their motto may as well be, “Agree with what we say or we will defend to your death our right to make you.”