Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Yes
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

I don't believe anyone will be seriously threatened or endangered because they say that what happened at the Capitol was just a riot, not an insurrection and/or they say that Trump is not a nazi and/or they say that Trump is better than Biden and/or they wear a MAGA hat and/or they say that they aren't sure that the election was valid.

Saying flat out that the election was invalid might be a bit more problematic because it is associated with violence.  But if they can come up with some solid facts to back up the statement, that would help them.

Nope. Anyone can and has the right to voice an opinion about the validity or otherwise of an election. Was it a riot or insurrection. That this should even be raised shows how much freedom of expression has already been lost to the speech Nazis and Politically Correct purists - when people are afraid, rightly, to open their mouths they have won.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

He (or I )doesn't have to be suggesting any conspiracy theory to ask those vital questions about access.

He is saying they were allowed in because it was a false flag, because the people going in were pretending to be Trump supporters. The arbitrary accusation is that the cops let them in, that the cops were orchestrating a false flag alongside the violent protesters. He didn't say there was an agent provocateur (which is perfectly reasonable for a few individuals), he said it was a false flag.

"I have a hunch that this will turn out to be a false-flag operation done by Antifa people"

He did not retract that claim or reduce the claim to something more narrow. And he went on to say that *more* evidence was found. 

So, the reasons. Because there wasn't enough security. Because people broke in. That's how they managed to get in. They weren't "permitted" inside. They outnumbered the guards and the guards could not properly defend against a mob of people. Anyway, they got in, that's all we can say. Given the nature of the violence, and the timing, and what they were chanting, there is reason to suspect that many of the violent protesters were conspiring to create or provoke an insurrection. I don't think we can question that there was insurrectionary activity, but we can certainly question who was an insurrectionist as compared to merely a rioter who is causing a public disturbance. Which is the job of the FBI now of course.

No, I don't think you are saying it is a false flag. Although I think you underestimate how bad the riots were. 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Boydstun said:

14 January 2021

We will crush their violence enacted under their feast of self-delusion and contempt for our Constitutional rule of law. The republic will prevail. The citizens on both sides are armed if it should come to that, but I expect the organized force of the American government will succeed in defense and in bringing the violators to commensurate penalty.

 

~American Republic Forever~

gettysburg_pennsylvania_cannon_tree_statue_sculpture_civil_war-600302.jpg

Stephen, Only the vainglorious talk I hear of violence and counter violence alarms me. I have the experience of this, that to put forces on 'supposedly' defensive standby and preparedness is to covertly expect and seek strife and will find it, somewhere.

The Left media encourages that end and many of the Left would thrive on that crushing.

And I know that the Republicans evince more belief in the Constitution and Rule of Law than do much of the opposition.

I imagine a change-about scenario: I.e. In this case Trump wins a narrow victory. The election, like the last (sabotaged with attacks for his entire term), angrily contested as fraudulent. Antifa thugs invading the Capitol. Etc. THAT scenario would be predictably worse for ongoing ("justifiable" the MSM would say) violence in the streets, and likely insurrection.

It was Mr Yaron Brook whose appalling rationale that Objectivists should vote Democrat - since, otherwise, "their nuttiness" (the city riots) would be never ending. On the last alone I would agree.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

This article doesn’t at all touch on the unique and extraordinary  character of a one of a kind , first time ever, unlike any other election, election.

Granted, COVID made things different, but Republicans could have dealt with it, as they did gain ground in congress. And in California, liberal initiatives failed. The whole thing is based on incompetence rather than fraud.

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

There are non irrational arguments that point to irregularities and there hasn’t been any well publicized extraordinary efforts to demonstrate serious effort was expended on securing the elections.If fact there are a lot of questions of the actions on officials in charge of a number of polling places , especially concerning chain of custody of the extraordinary number of mail / paper ballots .

There may have been incidents of irregularities here and there. But for it to happen on a massive scale, one would expect the congress and presidency to go to Biden. Biden was on his way for a lame duck presidency until Trump caused the loss in Georgia. For a massive fraud to exist, it would be very unlikely that the fraudsters wanted Biden to have a Republican congress.

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

The narrative the article speaks to is only consistent if the media caricature of Trump is believed. It is just as irrational to believe in lizard shape shifters as to believe Trump is an insane megalomaniac.

Trump has not been blood thirsty, but he is a demagogue. The danger is the next demagogue who is also bloodthirsty. If how Trump's way of behaving becomes the norm, we are vulnerable to become a pure banana republic fascism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

He is saying they were allowed in because it was a false flag, because the people going in were pretending to be Trump supporters. The arbitrary accusation is that the cops let them in, that the cops were orchestrating a false flag alongside the violent protesters. He didn't say there was an agent provocateur (which is perfectly reasonable for a few individuals), he said it was a false flag.

"I have a hunch that this will turn out to be a false-flag operation done by Antifa people"

He did not retract that claim or reduce the claim to something more narrow. And he went on to say that *more* evidence was found. 

So, the reasons. Because there wasn't enough security. Because people broke in. That's how they managed to get in. They weren't "permitted" inside. They outnumbered the guards and the guards could not properly defend against a mob of people. Anyway, they got in, that's all we can say. Given the nature of the violence, and the timing, and what they were chanting, there is reason to suspect that many of the violent protesters were conspiring to create or provoke an insurrection. I don't think we can question that there was insurrectionary activity, but we can certainly question who was an insurrectionist as compared to merely a rioter who is causing a public disturbance. Which is the job of the FBI now of course.

No, I don't think you are saying it is a false flag. Although I think you underestimate how bad the riots were. 

 


 

I've viewed some riots there in the US, from the many I did not see. Enough to know that as usual they were all "bad". I would rather on balance not watch violent protests, perhaps they are more real to me than to the TV Joe. I know in this one that there are good and moral reasons for Americans to be extra upset (invading the Capitol), but remember that this was the first show of violence by any on the Trump side in four years. Unless I missed something. How much bigger was it played in the media than any and all other political/racial violence this last year, in hundreds of instances?

So I advise to a maintain perspective and a sense of reality. For a start by not being stampeded into emotions by the Press.

Who can doubt there were bad elements among them, false flag and a.p.'s or not? But how much does it matter? I think to expect perfection from any vast number of people in society is as ridiculous as to expect imperfection of all of them.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Trump has not been blood thirsty, but he is a demagogue. The danger is the next demagogue who is also bloodthirsty. If how Trump's way of behaving becomes the norm, we are vulnerable to become a pure banana republic fascism.

A demagogue for the USA suits me. Easier to see from a distance is that Americans and America were becoming free-er, more independent, with Trump there. Despite the demagoguery or because of it, I don't know.

Individual freedom is hard and hateful to most people who are not strong enough to bear it and therefore Trump had to go.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

et

Which chamber is more powerful? Perhaps the fraudsters timeframe is longer than one or even two cycles and given most of the mechanisms alleged to have employed not the first cycle they may have been used.  The optics? , how many new members voted to impeach?or those more neoconish? Not to mention is/would this cycle be one to expect to see a split ticket electorate? What if the mechanics of manipulation only conferred advantages or opportunities to affect the top of the tickets? 

And Joe Biden , Joe Biden? Most presidential votes ever? Man that’s a lot of Bernie bros.

Breaking an algorithm and having to shut down to scan enough paper to make up the margins isn’t out of the realm of possibility far enough without a highly transparent showing of inherent validity. The narrative I see feels like wide spread reluctance to entertain challenges, why did they resist the opportunity to rub his face in it? Might even be better than a second lame duck impeachment, maybe they just did the one they could. Hell doing both would have been better. 

A non bloodthirsty , (American) nationalist who uses jingoistic demagoguery, sounds awfully antiestablishment, I’m in..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

remember that this was the first show of violence by any on the Trump side in four years.

The Proud Boys... I mean yeah, not the majority, not even close, but they are Trump supporters nonetheless.

Not to mention that this instance was the single worst showing of violence at the very seat of the federal government pertaining to a fundamental aspect of the Constitution. No, I'm not about to jump on every Trump supporter for being swept up by the storm of emotions. I'm all about condemning the people who were most in a position to do something, like Trump or any number of people who failed to act. Regardless of what Trump said in his speech, we know for a fact that he failed to respond quickly and decisively.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Who can doubt there were bad elements among them, false flag and a.p.'s or not? But how much does it matter?

That it was a false flag operation is an incredible claim. The word is used to mean that "some people were not what they say they were". It would mean that the very event in question (the break-in) was fabricated and frame one group. It would not mean that one group provoked another group and made their reaction look bad. It means committing the act yourself but blaming a group that had no involvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

That it was a false flag operation is an incredible claim. The word is used to mean that "some people were not what they say they were".

You mean like BLM and Antifa supporters being there, being photographed there, and being arrested for being there -- but the media and the Democrats saying that they were all Trump supporters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

A non bloodthirsty , (American) nationalist who uses jingoistic demagoguery, sounds awfully antiestablishment, I’m in..

Anti-establishment? You have no idea what that means. It could mean defund the police. It simply means wanting change. You have no clue that it means being a liberal (anti-conservative). Ultimately you are fighting for an empty slogan. Similar to the woman who got shot, her children will learn she died for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

That it was a false flag operation is an incredible claim. The word is used to mean that "some people were not what they say they were". It would mean that the very event in question (the break-in) was fabricated and frame one group. It would not mean that one group provoked another group and made their reaction look bad. It means committing the act yourself but blaming a group that had no involvement.

Why "no involvement"? What about *some* - why should this need to be all -or- nothing?

I don't get it.

Put it this way, if there ~were~ agent provocateurs at the forefront breaking in and egging on Trump supporters, I wouldn't be amazed (there's that clip of some people climbing in to a chorus of "Antifa!" from the crowd. Maybe so). I believe we all understand the nihilism of Antifa and therefore what they are capable of.

And if there were not, likewise.

The depraved extreme Left and their counterparts on the Right are morally, psychologically and politically indistinguishable.

A useful, more accurate device I've found is not to simplistically view Left and Right as a linear expansion from the centrist position on a spectrum, as is traditional. Look at it instead as a circle, beginning from the APEX and circling around from there, left and rightwards to meet up at the base - where together gather the extremists on both sides, fascists etc. The "base" describes them best.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the same thing. Why not *some* electoral fraud? Why all or nothing? That seems to be the cognitively lazy and prejudiced approach. There have been sober commentators without an obvious bias, reminding that there has traditionally been fraudulence in US elections.

The question is in 2020 - how much? To what extent, to how much effect on the results and how much was pre-planned?

One could make a safe bet that some minor electoral official, somewhere, buried some Trump votes. After all, this is to save America from 'Nazism', he/she'd justify their actions. Where that had consequences on a county and/or a state's vote tally is harder to estimate. And if one official was motivated to have done so, many more could too. However a large-scale and deliberate fraud by the DNC, I am inclined to dismiss, while admitting I've not followed down those rabbit holes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so on. But never out of the question. Best, I said to a friend, to accept the results and move on.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, necrovore said:

You mean like BLM and Antifa supporters being there, being photographed there, and being arrested for being there -- but the media and the Democrats saying that they were all Trump supporters?

Typo on my part. I forgot the word 'not' in the part you quoted because I edited the following sentences to reverse the negatives for style but missed the first sentence. 

To clarify any ambiguity from my typo: a false flag would not just mean that some people were there who were not who they said they were. a false flag would mean committing the act yourself but blaming another group that had no involvement or was not the source. 

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Why "no involvement"? What about *some* - why should this need to be all -or- nothing?

Then that wouldn't be a false flag. The point of a false flag is that it is a hoax, a fabrication, something that wasn't what it seemed to be. What we have here is an intense (and perhaps coordinated before hand but further investigation is required) attempt to invalidate and overthrow the election results, alongside other agitators of all stripes who wanted to add to the chaos or had other motives. Chaotic and wild, but not a hoax or fabrication. In other words, a false flag disguises the source, like Wikipedia describes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag  if I exaggerate the no involvement part, let's focus on the source of the chaos. Like a crop circle, where somebody makes it themselves but tries to make it seem like aliens did it.

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The depraved extreme Left and their counterparts on the Right are morally, psychologically and politically indistinguishable.

I pretty much agree.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

The question is in 2020 - how much? To what extent, to how much effect on the results and how much was pre-planned?

Yes, this is fine. As far as I understand, most people have not argued that there was literally no fraud, but that there was not widespread fraud in such a way that the election results could be changed. If people say "there was no fraud" they usually mean there was no widespread fraud. Yell at them for speaking poorly, but I think if you press most people they will easily and quickly acknowledge that some fraud occurred (I recall that one of the court cases in some county involved Trump claiming they were thousands of fraudulent ballots from people who died, but there were actually only 2). 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

One could make a safe bet that some minor electoral official, somewhere, buried some Trump votes.

And that's at the heart of absurdity. One official in one precinct, or one state cannot Change the Entire Result of the Presidential Election. For instance if Pennsylvania was a complete fraud, it is immaterial, Biden would still win. When Arizona and Georgia were won, 2 states with Republican Governors, Biden won. He got over 270 mark. The possibility of a Trump win in the Electoral college goes away when that happens.

And one official in multiple states that run their own elections can't do it either.

Edited by Easy Truth
The entire result can't be changed by a small incidence of fraud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two major parties run the elections there is coordination on a national level, one precinct boss can’t affect a national election but a broader body can have effects through precincts.

The DNC didn’t want Bernie and they didn’t get him and the RNC didn’t want Trump in 2016 but had to go with him anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Was it a riot or insurrection. That this should even be raised shows how much freedom of expression has already been lost to the speech Nazis and Politically Correct purists - when people are afraid, rightly, to open their mouths they have won.

Who, exactly, is afraid to say it was just a riot and not an insurrection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Anti-establishment? You have no idea what that means. It could mean defund the police. It simply means wanting change. You have no clue that it means being a liberal (anti-conservative). Ultimately you are fighting for an empty slogan. Similar to the woman who got shot, her children will learn she died for nothing.

Slogans can’t be empty they’re more like verbal memes, the ideas they point to may be empty or devoid of intellectual merit , but an empty slogan would not be recognizable as slogan , no?

Antiestablishment is pretty much the appeal of Trump, the ‘voice of the forgotten ‘ the diminishing middle class. Trumpism is a national populist movement, how is that not antiestablishment?

The Establishment threw everything they had at Trump for years and just barely beat him, I’d say the jury’s out but it never really sat.

A little birdie is saying the author of the article cited up thread , was Steele’s source for the dossier. Should her assessment that of Trump be taken with any grains of salt for an objective observer?

Edited by tadmjones
Added to
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Who, exactly, is afraid to say it was just a riot and not an insurrection?

If people say "you can't say X anymore" then they are the ones that are scared to say X. I mean, they don't say that unless they already believe that they can't say X anymore. Either they are recognizing that they want to say something really inappropriate and few people want to tolerate (and sometimes say it anyway), or it is a baseless fear like being afraid of spiders. 

Saying there was no insurrection at all is pretty bad. It is perfectly fine to question how much of it was an insurrection, and how many participants there were, and how many were just random people hopping onto the chaos. But to say there was no insurrection, that's entering dangerous territory. I'm more willing to tolerate that than most I think, because I'm willing to accept that the disagreement would usually be that we need to nail down what insurrection means. Generally, though, people should be afraid to say that. They should think about it very carefully before they speak. There should be a major negative consequences with people not wanting to associate with you.

Basically, there should be hesitation to say things like that. You will likely, and probably justifiably, be seen as someone who would looks the other way if the country was directly under attack. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

If people say "you can't say X anymore" then they are the ones that are scared to say X. I mean, they don't say that unless they already believe that they can't say X anymore. Either they are recognizing that they want to say something really inappropriate and few people want to tolerate (and sometimes say it anyway), or it is a baseless fear like being afraid of spiders. 

Saying there was no insurrection at all is pretty bad. It is perfectly fine to question how much of it was an insurrection, and how many participants there were, and how many were just random people hopping onto the chaos. But to say there was no insurrection, that's entering dangerous territory. I'm more willing to tolerate that than most I think, because I'm willing to accept that the disagreement would usually be that we need to nail down what insurrection means. Generally, though, people should be afraid to say that. They should think about it very carefully before they speak. There should be a major negative consequences with people not wanting to associate with you.

Basically, there should be hesitation to say things like that. You will likely, and probably justifiably, be seen as someone who would looks the other way if the country was directly under attack. 

You have to take in the magnitude of this. You or I are not allowed to reasonably discuss the definition of insurrection - etc.. There is no amicable, "let's agree to differ". It will either be their way or the highway. If I say "riot" I am branded indelibly with being a Trump- dictator-Hitler supporter. That can mean social ostracization and losing employment or clients and being de-banked and things we haven't imagined yet; they understand this much: one's words reveal one's mind and it is "your minds they want". Think of tortures of the Spanish Inquisition, and you won't go far wrong. These are morally-superior, vengeful little people who have grasped the power and justify punishing the unfaithful 'for the collective good'. It's been a few weeks and the 'crats, big Tech, celebs, TV anchormen, college profs, have already, without shame or fear of contradiction, exhibited their aims. Give them time. The drooling beast has been released.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The drooling beast has been released.

I wish this were hyperbole,

but ev'ry word is most assured.

The drooling beast has been released.

It circles 'round our hallowed ground,

awaiting weak and fearful fools.

They bleat and squeal before they kneel,

before the beast begins to feast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...