In South Africa, mobs are toppling or vandalizing statues. Pols shrug, say "We can't do nothin'."

In South Africa groups of...a certain political orientation... are systematically toppling or otherwise vandalizing statues of historic significance--a dozen so far.

Most liberals will probably claim this is a novel, imaginative and mostly harmless form of protest by the oppressed members of the...groups of unspecified race and political orientation.

These are the same liberals who claim the "knockout game" isn't real.  Or maybe it might be real but it isn't really hurting anyone.

If confronted with news articles they might backtrack a bit and say well, it might be real and maybe a few whites--who as every good liberal knows are absolutely rolling in "white privilege"--might be getting slightly hurt by "it," but certainly not enough to get irate about.

If you show them even more news stories they might admit that it's just barely possible that a couple of unlucky victims of these sneak attacks on unsuspecting whites may have been killed by their assailants, but only because they happened to land on their head or something.  So that's really an accident--the perps surely never intended to kill the victim so you can't possibly hold 'em responsible for what's essentially a mostly harmless form of protest by a mostly powerless group of people who may have had ancestors who were slaves.

To liberals this makes perfect sense.

Of course liberals will happily say and do anything to tear down western civilization, so you might want to keep that in mind.  And of course it wasn't their wife or daughter or son who got sucker-punched and knocked cold.  But even if it was, they'd probably use their imagined white guilt to rationalize it as being somehow deserved.

So back to South Africa:  The vandals are almost exclusively black, and the statues are of non-blacks (but not exclusively whites:  they damaged one of Mahatma Ghandi, which makes you wonder what insults they attributed to Ghandi).

A particularly poignant example was the "horse statue":  It was a statue of a soldier on one knee offering his faithful horse a bucket of water.  But of course the black communists of South Africa consider all memorials erected by or to commemorate non-blacks offensive, regardless of how benign the subject or its artistic merit.  In fact the head of SA's communist party has declared that any statue erected before 1994 (when Mandela became president of the country) will be taken down.

This is the kind of "logic" that would burn the Mona Lisa, or blow up the Sistine Chapel.  Indeed, their counterparts in Iraq are already blowing up ancient churches and walled cities established by ancient civilizations (and not remotely white) for the same reason:  "If it was built by a civilization before the founding of Islam we're offended by it and will destroy it, regardless of its uniqueness, historic or artistic significance."

It seems clear this is nothing less than an attempt at intimidation.  Like the "knockout game" here.  It's "We can do this and get away with it, and if you don't do as we demand, we will target you next."

Interesting philosophy.  If whites were doing this to blacks liberals would be shrieking and screaming to high heaven.  But it seems as though liberal-pushed notions of "white guilt" have now made it possible for blacks to attack whites without a moment's fear of being either caught, prosecuted or jailed.

Seems to me that there's an obvious fix for that.  And not hard to discern, either.

Sadly, it seems to me the experiences of South Africa are likely to happen here in another 15-20 years, unless some big factor changes.  Because when the emperor nominates--and worse, the senate confirms--a nominee to the post of Attorney-General of the United States who has consistently refused to affirm that she will enforce the laws and the Constitution, it's clear the law is finished, replaced by the rule of executive order.