BLM rioters have undeniably damaged thousands of properties, including the destruction of public monuments, breaking of windows, along with the burning down of a Wendy’s and even an entire Minneapolis police station.
Yes, I acknowledge that some (not all) of these acts were likely perpetrated by far-right infiltrators and undercover cops). That doesn’t erase the fact that some violence has been perpetrated by some members of BLM. As a long-time supporter of revolution who believes more aggressive approach is needed, I do not condemn such tactics anyway. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I participated in several BLM protests in Los Angeles County and saw firsthand how peaceful the vast majority of participants really were, to a point that it was actually almost nauseating. We cannot realistically achieve the goal of defunding the police (or even half-assed social justice reforms) if all we do is briefly disrupt traffic and walk around holding signs, yelling into what is essentially a void. You might as well be screaming “PRETTY PLEASE DEFUND THE POLICE” and crossing your fingers that somebody in power develops a conscience.
You’re facing off against the American Gestapo, an organized, armed, and lethal force that eliminates and average of 2-3 American civilians (that we know of) on a daily basis. ISIS meanwhile has killed four American civilians. Total. Which means American cops are repeatedly out-killing us compared to ISIS at least once every two days on average.
These sociopaths are supported by unions and the Fraternal Order of Police with most politicians, district attorneys, and judges in their back pockets. Forcing significant reforms over such an organization would require an escalated plan of action that matches or exceeds the force and strategy of the opposition. That’s Warfare 101.
Roughly one thousand American civilians are being killed by law enforcement every year, not to mention the tens of thousands being assaulted, gassed, and shot at with rubber bullets or the hundreds of thousands put in cages for non-violent offenses. Sounds like a terrorist organization waging a war against those they swore an oath to protect, doesn’t it?
Yet the response from BLM still remained (and remains) almost suspiciously peaceful.
I suspect the leadership of BLM has been co-opted by undercover agents who trojan-horsed their way in there to neuter any hope of achieving the radical progress we truly need. Regardless, I still find nothing inherently wrong with BLM continuing to peacefully protesting to get the message out there and raise awareness/consciousness. It’s something. It just won’t ever be enough to get the job done. Which is probably why a strong 63% majority of Americans as of July 2020 felt comfortable enough to state their support for the movement.
According to a detailed analysis by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), nearly 95% of BLM protests were non-violent.
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE CAPITOL RIOTS?
The 87 arrests related to the so-called siege on the Capitol was recently published by WUSA9, a local CBS News affiliate. The article includes a comprehensive list of those arrested along with the specific charges each one is facing.
What percentage of Capitol protestors were violent?
I scanned the article for every mention of the word “assault” and there were only 14 hits, only 9 of which were specifically for assault. The other five were charged with “assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers of employees”, keyword being or. Believe me, if you assaulted a cop you would be charged with assaulting a cop, not some nebulous multiple-choice charge.
So as of January 19th, a total of nine protestors had been arrested for perpetrating acts of violence at the Capitol out of a total of 20,000 who attended. That comes out to be 0.045%. Less than half of one percent.
“Don’t dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob. Insurrectionists. Domestic terrorists. It’s that basic. It’s that simple.”
– Joe Biden, speaking only for the simple-minded
Joe Biden, as usual, is dead wrong. What happened at the Capitol was an overwhelmingly peaceful protest with only a very small faction committing a riot. How is that not objectively true? How many buildings were burned down? How many cars were torched? How many shots were fired? Half a dozen were charged with carrying a firearm. No one has been charged for using one.
Of course, I do recognize that one member of law enforcement reportedly died, though I have yet to hear specifics on how this happened. Four protestors were also killed, yet the corporate media just keeps reporting Capitol riots left 5 people dead without specifying, leaving viewers to think that all five were cops killed by Trumpers. I’m also aware that some explosives were allegedly found by the FBI, but could just have easily been planted by the FBI themselves. (It’s a good rule of thumb to never trust any U.S. Intelligence organization without evidence to verify).
It’s worth noting that not only were the vast majority of protestors peaceful, but mere hundreds ever even entered the Capitol building. Roughly 800, last I read, meaning less than 5% of those in attendance.
Yet the corporate media and politicians would have you believing that there was a deadly siege by a violent mob, an attempted insurrection and a failed coup d’état. I see little evidence to support any of this rhetoric.
Democrats are going so far off the deep end that Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have even accused protestors as being “Putin puppets”, laughably pointing fingers at Russia, the go-to scapegoat for the increasingly dishonest and shameless Democratic Party.
In the aftermath, multiple forces have been coalescing behind a hyperbolic narrative that is being heavily-weaponized. Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are actually characterizing the Capitol protest as a terrorist attack on par with 9-11, using the same fear-mongering rhetoric used by the Bush Administration to justify swift passage of the Patriot Act, reducing American privacy rights to such a degree that it effectively removed the Fourth Amendment. Now they’re coming for the First and will justify it as part of a War on Domestic Terrorism. This is a war against the right to dissent.
Tulsi Gabbard, one of the few reliable voices of reason remaining, went on Fox News to explain the the practical dangers of going down this path:
We also have Silicon Valley and Big Tech playing interference by silencing voices that speak out against the absurd propaganda, whether it’s Twitter and Facebook banning or shadow-banning accounts or Apple, Google, and Amazon conspiring to destroy a social platform entirely (RE: Parler). This is a fascist assault on our First Amendment right to free speech, which impacts all of us, but the forces-that-be would like you to believe that only the far-right are at risk of being muzzled. This is extremely naive.
Allowing a select few to have that much censoring power regardless of the motive or intent or target would only cement the corporate, fascist state that America has become.
As a progressive that has consistently shared the truth on social media platforms, I’ve been (of course) permanently banned by Twitter, am currently on a 30 day suspension from Facebook (undoubtedly because of my American Revolt page), and have received multiple warnings from Instagram threatening to remove my account. They are not just silencing conservatives.
This is why it’s exceedingly dangerous to allow a handful of unregulated CEO’s, who essentially hold a monopoly over public discussion, to dictate what does or does not constitute as free speech.
In addition, we of course have an actively complicit corporate media, the primary propaganda apparatus of the Deep State (RE: Operation Mockingbird) functioning as the lubricant to ensure that these false narratives continue to be successfully jammed right up our asses. If successful, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s draconian Domestic Terrorism bill will become law. Note the date on the first page of the document: August 16, 2019. Democrats have been waiting for an excuse to push it through, an effort that’s been spearheaded by U.S. Intelligence. This must be prevented at all costs.
If that requires another, much larger round against the Capitol, which unfortunately will likely be necessary… so be it.
ADAM SCHIFF, OBVIOUS LIAR + CIA CUCK:
For another taste of what these control freaks have in mind, listen to Chris Klebs (Deep State) and Alex Stamos (Facebook) explicitly call for cell phone carriers, social media platforms, internet providers, cable companies, etc. to “step up” and “turn down” conservative voices. And note how CNN host Brian Seltzer nods his fat empty head in complete agreement with their Orwellian proposal:
Both Klebs and Stamos are now partners at SolarWinds, a cybersecurity firm that would directly profit if their proposals were to be codified into law. Which appears to be exactly what the Democrats, who have become increasingly cozy with the Deep State, have in mind.
I abhor 99.9% of conservative ideology. I frequently find their arguments non-sensical, immoral, apathetic, and painfully ignorant. But I would fight to the death to preserve their First Amendment right to express such views, views I fervently disagree with.
Liberals who refute this by arguing that conservatives can still talk to each other in person so this isn’t, like, a free speech thing or whatever are being intentionally obtuse or unwittingly dumb. The public square isn’t the food court at a shopping mall anymore. It’s now done via texting, social media, etc. and anyone being honest knows this. When you eliminate the option of using such outlets to vent, debate, and discuss, you are effectively removing diplomacy and ensuring conflict.
Anyone on the Left supporting censorship is forfeiting the moral high ground they may have once held and should be ashamed of themselves for hypocritically abandoning their own principles. Attacking free speech isn’t liberal or progressive. It’s a betrayal.