Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, tmj said:

So stating the near homogeneity of the race of the participants was meant to signify , what ? Why did you mention the race  of the rioters , why did you consider it important to the discussion?

you sure that jab was ok ?

You are a black cop. White people are rioting and very violent. Past history is remembered, etc. That is the significance of race to this discussion. I think you are deliberately being . . . unsmart.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unsmart ? hmm I've repeatedly asked you if you think the riot was racially motivated and you insist that you don't, but when I point out the statements that seem to show you think it is true , you claim I am misinterpreting what you say. And then double down by explaining motivations of the participants based on racial considerations on their part? What am I missing ?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Leggo my Lego": "DOJ Retracts Claim It Seized ‘Fully Constructed’ Lego Set From Accused Capitol Rioter"

“The Lego set was in a box and not fully constructed at the time of the search”

The #DOJ retracted its claim that it seized a “fully constructed US Capitol Lego set” from an accused Capitol rioter. https://www.theepochtimes.com/doj-retracts-claim-it-seize

https://gab.com/TheEpochTimes/posts/106568321988078783

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Peter said:

Interesting. The book, which I read a long time ago, was recommending to me by my Mother when I was beginning to read and talk enthusiastically about Ayn Rand. She was worried.

Peter,

Roger Bissell posted Barbara Branden's review of this book here on OL back in 2006.

On 6/12/2006 at 8:53 AM, Roger Bissell said:

The True Believer by Eric Hoffer

reviewed by Barbara Branden

A nightmare figure haunts the forward motion of every new mass movement, infiltrating its leadership and swelling its ranks—whether the movement be philosophical or religious, social or political—whether it upholds reason or mysticism, freedom or force, the individual or the collective.

This nightmare figure is “the true believer.” He is “the man of fanatical faith,” writes Eric Hoffer in his fascinating, ominously perceptive and immensely valuable book. “He is everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing, he is shaping the world in his own image.”

The true believer may be the intellectual of the mass movement, the man of words—brilliant, vain, craving status, burning with hatred against a world that has refused him the adulation he craves. He may be the movement’s fanatical organizer—ruthless, self-righteous, petty, arrogant, eager to vent his frustrations, his envy, his bitterness, desperate to lose his despised and blemished self in something larger than self. He may be the lieutenant of the movement, fearless and proud, yet poisoned by self-contempt and a sense of personal failure, submitting wholly and gladly to the will of the leader, glorying in submission, surrendering to the leader not as a means to an end but as a fulfillment. He may be the leader of the movement—the man of daring vision, of harshly iron will, of joy in defiance, of fanatical, blind conviction, possessed of a passionately unyielding hatred and a sense of holy cause, pathologically mistrustful, able to dominate and almost bewitch a small group of able men. He may be a member of the rank and file—longing for the release of faith, for the dream of a glorious future that will replace his bitter, unfulfilling present, eager to be redeemed from the burdens, fears, hopelessness and overwhelming guilts of a meaningless and barren individual existence by absorption into a closely knit whole, rowdy and violent in his actions but obedient and submissive in his spirit, renouncing intellectual independence and its attendant doubts, uncertainties, errors and responsibilities—renouncing spiritual struggle and the sense of wonder—for the easy certitude of dogma, the deep assurance of total surrender.

Who is the true believer? What brings him into being? What psychological and historical forces create him? What inner agonies draw him to the mass movement? How is his presence manifested? These are the questions which, through provocative psychological analysis and brilliant historical example—and despite minor flaws of interpretation which the reader will have little difficulty in identifying—Eric Hoffer attempts to answer.

These are the questions that no student of Objectivism can afford to leave unanswered. Any vital new philosophical system, whatever its tenets, will attract true believers. The psychological needs which normally draw a man to faith, force and bloody destruction may instead lead him to stumble into a philosophy of reason and to seek his perverse fulfillment there. It is precisely as one upholds a rational system of philosophy and fights for a movement based on conviction, not faith, on ideas, not personalities, that one must study, understand and guard against this enemy within one’s own ranks—and, perhaps, within one’s own soul.

[This review originally appeared in the Summer 1969 issue (#1) of Academic Associates' Book News and was posted to Objectivist Living with the reviewer's permission on Monday June 12, 2006. Comments and questions are welcome.]

I find it amusing that the people who support or ignore the riots of Antifa, BLM, etc., look the other way about Critical Race Theory, etc. think Trump supporters are true believers in the Hoffer mold.

I can't help it. It's funny.

:) 

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a guy who understands true believers in the Hoffer mold. He never talks about Hoffer and I disagree with some of the things he says, but he understands the true believer concept better than most. 

Yes, they are still in jail.

Without bail.

Most all of them without being charged with violence.

Come to your own conclusion about who are the true believers...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the true believer the authoritarians are afraid of?

The true believer in freedom?

Maybe they should be afraid because many people have given their lives for freedom and many more are more than willing to do so.

They give their lives fighting authoritarians so their loved ones can be free.

Fuck authoritarians.

Michael

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a break. I agree with Scott Adams about keeping people in jail, by the way. Ready for some fun rewriting? Lemme’ see who I can make mad. True Believer Ernest Borgnine and friend, in “Marty:” “What do you want to do Marty?”

I don’t know. What do you want to do? (Long pause.)

“I don’t know. What do you want to do?”

I want a rebellion where we riot, invade the Capital, and take over this illegal government just like our founders did rebelling against Great Britain.

You sure that’s the right thing to do Marty? Forty nine percent of the people vote democratic. The military supports whoever is the Commander in Chief. And you know the Capital Police and the Secret Service will protect the Congress, The President, and The Capital.

Of course it’s the right thing to do! The American election was a fraud. Our cause is SO JUST I will destroy the CURRENT United States and restore it to . . . . er . . . . Donald Trump, and anyone who gets in our way is guilty as charged. So take that traitors!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tmj said:

Unsmart ? hmm I've repeatedly asked you if you think the riot was racially motivated

No it was not racially motivated. I have never even hinted that it was.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

An awful lot of people filmed Anshli's shooting and a lot of footage from different angles went out on the Interwebs at the time. Then, like an on/off switch, all that went into the ether as the mainstream fake narrative machine took over...

And there's this. Greenwald is the guy who broke to Snowden story.

Are the authoritarians trying to rewrite history in real time?

Nah...

It's because the cop who murdered Anshli is a black dude and she was white and unarmed and that didn't fit their story...

They don't know what history is, much less about rewriting it.

They only know the stories their masters create.

btw - Here's the name of the dude: Trump Supporter Charlie Kirk Reveals Lt. Michael Byrd as Shooter of Ashli Babbitt in a TV First (VIDEO).

And here's what he looks like:

image.png

Just to remember, here is Ashli Babbit.

image.png

It's hard to stage a BLM and Antifa race riot around that, huh?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yadda, yaddda, bad pun, yes he did “jump the gun.” My best assumption as to why the police officer has not been officially named is because of the huge number of threats, and the state of mind of those threatening. Exposer of his name will also expose his home address and phone number. Now he is likely to get crank calls, graffiti writers, arsonists, bombers, and assassinating shooters . .  . all at his doorstep. The people doing the threatening are most likely “true believers,” the opposite of “never Trumper’s,” who are also true believers, but maybe not as dangerously deranged as bombers like Timothy McVeigh. This case is similar to Derek Chauvin who killed George Floyd. The potentially violent may be right wingers, in a militia, own firearms, are verbally abusive, etc., however that may be assuming too much about ardent Trump supporters like me. He may need his own police protection and perhaps go into hiding similar to witness protection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Peter said:

My best assumption as to why the police officer has not been officially named is because of the huge number of threats, and the state of mind of those threatening. Exposer of his name will also expose his home address and phone number. Now he is likely to get crank calls, graffiti writers, arsonists, bombers, and assassinating shooters . .  . all at his doorstep.

Peter,

You mean like with Derek Chauvin back when that happened? The press and the pundits and the politicians had a field day. Or countless others from the events that prompted BLM and Antifa race riots?

Double standard working here?

Racism is only a motive when Trump people are accused? 

That's a premise that sorely needs checking.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the use of force to right a wrong or to overthrow a governmental decision, etc.? Here are some interesting quotes about The Rule of Law. Peter

George H. Smith wrote: The main argument of Antifederalists was that the Constitution was a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution and constituted a serious threat to individual liberty. They were largely right. end quote

Ghs woite in IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM: If at any point Objectivists are willing to admit that individuals have the right to resist an unjust law or overthrow a despotic government, then they are conceding the basic premise of anarchism: namely, that true sovereignty resides in each individual, who has the right to assess the justice of a particular law, procedure or government.

Ghs wrote: Every ideological movement in history (at least those I know anything about) has experienced a good deal of in-fighting, but I wouldn't characterize this as "cannibalism." Indeed, I think this internal dialogue, however intense, is a very healthy sign. It's when an ideological movement loses this inner fire that it becomes stale and moribund, and unable to attract young, energetic, and innovative minds.

Rand: Observe that, in spite of their differences, altruism is the untouched, unchallenged common denominator in the ethics of all these philosophies. It is the single richest source of rationalizations. A morality that cannot be practiced is an unlimited cover for any practice. Altruism is the rationalization for the mass slaughter in Soviet Russia—for the legalized looting in the welfare state—for the power-lust of politicians seeking to serve the "common good"—for the concept of a "common good"—for envy, hatred, malice, brutality—for the arson, robbery, highjacking, kidnapping, murder perpetrated by the selfless advocates of sundry collectivist causes—for sacrifice and more sacrifice and an infinity of sacrificial victims. When a theory achieves nothing but the opposite of its alleged goals, yet its advocates remain undeterred, you may be certain that it is not a conviction or an "ideal," but a rationalization. end quote

Question: Well then, Dr. Branden, how would you answer the argument of these anarchists that, since government necessarily entails a monopoly on the use of force, such a monopoly can be maintained only by force and, hence, government always involves some violation of individual rights?

Branden: This, of course, is their favorite argument and their stock argument. In briefest essentials, I would answer as follows. Let's imagine, to make it very simple, that we--this group in this room tonight-- form a society and agree on the principles to be operative in the society in a political sense. We agree upon a constitution and a government is created for the purpose of carrying out the principles laid down in this constitution. Now, let us say that somebody new is born into the society or enters it from some other country, and he says: ‘Look. I wasn't consulted, I wasn't asked my opinion about this system of government. I want to set up a competing system of government. How can you justify forbidding me from doing so and threatening me with jail if I don't go along with the present political order of things?’

And my answer is the following. And remember we are talking here about a free system, about a government which is limited in its function to the protection of individual rights. Suppose that I am the spokesman for this hypothetical government. Then I would say to this person as follows: In this society, nobody is forbidding you anything so long as you do not violate the rights of anybody else in this society. That means, more specifically, if you want to form private arbitration agencies to settle disputes among people who will become your clients, you may do so. That happens even in our present society. You can form a private club or a private organization and lay down any kind of rules you want for your members. You will not be stopped until and unless you attempt to use physical force or fraud or some derivative against some fellow member of this society. That you have no right to do.

If you ever attempt to use force, let us say, in retaliation against a criminal, which you may have to do if the police are not available, you will be obliged to justify later your use of force and to demonstrate that it was, in fact, necessary. If you can justify it, you're in no trouble, any more than any other citizen of a free country is in trouble. So that so long as you don't infringe somebody else's rights, you can form any kind of organization you want. You can have your own arbitration committee, you can have your own system of penalties and fines and so long as the people who go along with your organization voluntarily agree to pay them, you have no problem. Your problem begins when you attempt to use force to get your way. Therefore, in conclusion, I argue that in the system we are advocating, the individual is not having his rights violated because he is not allowed to set up a competing government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Peter said:

What about the use of force to right a wrong or to overthrow a governmental decision, etc.?

Peter,

You mean like election fraud on a massive scale?

I saw--with my own eyes on live broadcasts--lots of force being used during the 2020 election--force that was not lawful.

This force was used over and over to overthrow the governmental decisions of how elections are supposed to be run.

Why is that force supposed to be ignored?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an added point, I also saw law enforcement personnel refuse to enforce the law when force was being used to break it during the 2020 election. That was quite common.

Think about this. Lots of peaceful people who were invited into the capitol building by the police on Jan. 6 are now in jail and held without bail. How in hell does that work re using force?

In fact, watching law enforcement personnel refuse to enforce the law is so commonplace these days, who hasn't seen police standing by as Antifa and BLM burn down buildings, trash cars, steal from stores, beat people, and so on? Even the mainstream news shows this stuff.

How does that work if principles are the issue? And how is it corrected when it keeps happening with no signs of stopping?

With a syllogism?

Michael

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked, “What about the use of force to right a wrong or to overthrow a governmental decision, etc.?And Michael answered, “You mean like election fraud on a massive scale?

And Michael wrote, “In fact, watching law enforcement personnel refuse to enforce the law is so commonplace these days, who hasn't seen police standing by as Antifa and BLM burn down buildings, trash cars, steal from stores, beat people, and so on?” end quote

Were the police lax in enforcing laws in DC? Does anyone think it is time for an insurrection / revolution / civil war? Some folks in Haiti just thought so. Some people in DC thought so too. I don’t think there has been PROOF of “massive election fraud” but changes in election vote counting should be initiated. Peter

Notes. Quote from “Libertarians and the Confederate Battle Flag,” by Thomas J. DiLorenzo: The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers "bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self-government," writes McPherson, and spoke of a fear of being "subjugated" and "enslaved" by a tyrannical federal government. Sound familiar? Many Confederate soldiers thought of the war as "the Second war for American Independence." A Texas cavalryman told his sister in a letter that just as earlier Americans had "rebelled against King George to establish Liberty and freedom in this western world . . . so we dissolved our alliance with this oppressive foe and are now enlisted in The Holy Cause of Liberty and Independence again."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another election point to ponder, before I retire my brain to “Wheel of Fortune” and “Jeopardy”.  Was the storming of the Capital NOT the initiation of force, and therefor moral, because the election results were an emergency situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Were the police lax in enforcing laws in DC?

Peter.

Hell yeah.

You have even looked at video footage of it right here on OL.

But because of the passions right now, I don't think you saw it.

Here is where I think we keep going around. Trump supporters are peaceful by default. Yet the media story is that they are raving racist lunatics.

I don't accept that characterization. Or even the insinuation of it.

I have been to and seen too many Trump rallies to believe otherwise. (And that is only one data point about Trump supporters I know.)

But I do agree that rioting, destroying and invading buildings is wrong. For any Trump supporters who are proven to have done that, I am satisfied if they are properly punished.

(I am not satisfied, thought, that large numbers of Trump supporters should be held for months without bail while the authorities try to come up with evidence against them. That is not how the American justice system is structured.) 

Now, do you agree that the Deep State and Antifa and BLM are capable of infiltrating a peaceful demonstration to cause mayhem? If you agree that is possible, do you condemn it if it happened?

If so, then we agree at root on all the fundamentals and are just talking past each other due to this or that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If so, then we agree at root on all the fundamentals and are just talking past each other due to this or that.

Absolutely. But the lady who was shot WAS a Trump supporter . . . and she wanted entrance to the floors of the Capital, "to make a pass," if I heard it correctly. So, was she right to protest? Yes. Was she right to invade, occupy the building. No. Was she following Trump's orders  as perceived by her . . . yes. But he and some of his "spokespeople" hinted / suggested something bigger than shouting at the Capital. a suggestion to all. Re-watch DJ's, Don Jr's and Guilfoil's rousing speeches before the insurrection. This episode has crippled Trump's chances in 2024.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Numbers. What would you as a Republican, pro Trump political analyst do?  Are you worried about Trump’s re=election in 2024? The DOW is around a one time high of 35,000. Boom Town. We are not in any wars and Biden blew off the idea of putting our troops in Haiti, or anywhere else. He has backed off on a lot of the left wing BS. He seems to be healthy and he speaks well with a teleprompter, at his age. The deficit of Kamala? She may be replaced and she may welcome that. Trump lost votes during the DC riots. One percent may make all the difference.

So. We are wishin’ and hopin’ for a major snafu from the Biden team sometime in the next three years. Maybe a “Far Side” cartoon by Gary Larson will actually happen and it will make a difference. And so to bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Peter said:

Was she following Trump's orders  as perceived by her . . . yes.

This is a bald assertion.

1. There is no evidence suggesting this

2. A deeper understanding of what makes a person join a protest (self-promoted and widely known as against election fraud and in favor of freedom and America) clearly suggests this woman is NOT of a philosophy of simply "following orders" (although she had previously been in the military)

 

That said, those who lean authoritarian (knowingly or not), automatically see through the lens of the webs, chains and shackles of obedience and disobedience, followers and leaders, State and Mob, Master and Slave,

not knowing a person can be of free and individual mind, independently choosing what she believes is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I, for one, welcome our new Authoritarian overlords..."

Capitol Police to use Army surveillance system on Americans to ‘identify emerging threat’

"Some privacy rights advocates have raised concern that Capitol Police are getting into the business of spying on Americans."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jul/10/capitol-police-use-army-surveillance-system-americ/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in Texas:

"Abbott says Democratic lawmakers will be arrested when they return to Texas"
 

Quote

 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) on Monday said the Democratic lawmakers who left the state earlier that day to deny Republicans a quorum to convene a special legislative session and consider a sweeping elections reform bill will be arrested upon their return to the Lone Star State.

A majority of Texas House Democrats fled the state on a charter flight bound for Washington, D.C., on Monday in an effort to stop the passage of a measure that would overhaul the state’s election procedures, in addition to other controversial priorities backed by Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), during a special legislative session.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/562669-abbott-says-democratic-lawmakers-will-be-arrested-as-soon-as-they-return

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now