Stii ce caut aici "militarule roman" ? Troli bolsevici ca tine pe care sa-i enervez. Eu nu sunt si n-am fost niciodata antirus sau pro-american. Sunt roman si atat. Daca tot ai alergie la americani, uite aici ce spun doi rusi despre Trump si comandantul tau suprem LINK Din pacate si astia vorbesc tot in "inglieza" si o sa te zgarie "pi timpani", dar poate mai faci "oliaca di intielijens" inainte sa te lansezi in discutii de sputnik pe aici. Au taiat astia curentul la ambasada si nu mai pot sa scriu Oricum, sa nu ai mari aspiratii in cariera ...esti foarte slab.
Stii ce caut aici "militarule roman" ? Troli bolsevici ca tine pe care sa-i enervez.
Ei, aşa mai merge. Pentru sinceritatea asta mai că te-aş ierta. Era evident şi înainte, dar altfel sună o confesiune... Ca urmare, să nu ne obosim reciproc. Dacă ai opinii constructive, accept polemica. Dacă nu, e pierdere de timp.
Iar revenind la subiect, eu nu neg că rusnacii profită de tulburările din SUA - ba chiar sunt convins că toarnă, după posibilități, "gaz pe foc" (fiind ei mari "găzari"). Dar să pui totul în cârca lui Putin, neglijând nenumărate alte aspecte, e o abordare cel puțin superficială.
Până ín prezent, un lucru e cert : campania electorală din SUA se radicalizează de la zi la zi. Cele două mari "rampe" (CNN și FOX) se íntrec în mesaje dure, uitând până și mimarea, de fațadă, a unei minime obiectivități. Ín paralel, zumzetul "Q" se amplifică ín spațiul virtual, mesajele vizând acum fățiș Partidul Democrat (și lăsând ín subsidiar speculațiile Epstein & Pizzagate) Este, cu siguranță, cea mai extremă confruntare electorală după multe decenii, fiind indicatorul cel mai clar al problemelor din societatea americană. Un pronostic e dificil, însă Trump e bine ínfipt, în zonele sale "țintă". Sondajele îl dau mereu ín urma lui Biden, dar faptul nu e elocvent. Și ín 2016 a fost mereu după Hillary, pierzând chiar și votul popular, la câteva milioane de sufragii diferență. Strategia sa vizează, la fel ca acum 4 ani, dinamica "electorilor". Altfel spus, e irelevant pentru el dacă devine și mai impopular ín New-York sau Los Angeles (unde oricum era perdant), scopul fiind să câștige state mai multe și mai mici (predilect Midwest sau Sudul Confederat). E posibil să câștige ín aceeași manieră contestabilă (chiar cu o renumărare, ca ín cazul lui Bush Fiul lui Tata). Dar asta nu va stopa fenomenul protestatar, ci îl va alimenta prin ceea ce se va considera "lipsă de legitimitate". Radicalizările și extremismul vor continua, progresiv, până la cotele care vor naște tulburări grave. Dar acestea (în opinia mea) vor fi poverile grele ale următoarei administrații (2024 - 2028).
Fiindca a fost vorba de oldies but goldies propun cititorilor acestui topic discursul de bun-ramas al lui Dwight Eisenhower, un presedinte care nu poate fi acuzat in niciun caz de lipsa de patriotism, de prostie sau de sfiosenie. LINK
***
Pârvu Florin wrote ...
Din articolul lui Paul Yingling citare:
Of course, not even the most skilled general can visualize precisely how future wars will be fought. According to British military historian and soldier Sir Michael Howard, “In structuring and preparing an army for war, you can be clear that you will not get it precisely right, but the important thing is not to be too far wrong, so that you can put it right quickly.”
The most tragic error a general can make is to assume without much reflection that wars of the future will look much like wars of the past.
Bineinteles ca nici cel mai priceput general nu poate anticipa precis cum vor fi purtate razboaiele viitorului. Sir Michael Howard, istoric militar si luptator: "E evident ca predictia tipului viitor de razboi si implicit organizarea si pregatirea unei armate pentru lupta nu se poate face cu suta la suta acuratete, dar e important sa nu gresesti prea mult si ca atare sa te poti adapta rapid.
Cea mai tragica eroare pe care o poate face un general e sa prezume fara sa reflecteze ca razboaiele viitorului vor semana cu cele ale trecutului."
Steep rise in confrontational protests in UK since 2000
New level of social tensions indicated by sharp increases in confrontational protests and hate crime, finds review The study found that protests that involved confrontational tactics including blockades and occupations had increased 20-fold over the past two decades.
“Whereas in the past the police could deal relatively straightforwardly with bringing offenders to justice they are now presented with a variety of problems, many of which require a social rather than a criminal justice solution and most of which cannot be tackled by a single agency but require extensive collaboration.”
The figures on protest are based on a major study by academic David Bailey, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Birmingham.
The first phase of the review found that although traditional crime such as burglary and car theft had fallen since the turn of the millennium, in its place there had been a huge rise in online crime and in sexual offences reported to the police. The police have also had to deal with many more incidents involving people who are disadvantaged.
It found that since 1995 crime, excluding fraud and cybercrime, had fallen by 70%. But cybercrime and fraud had increased rapidly and made up 44% of all crime in 2019.
Police officers are called to more incidents involving disadvantaged people with mental health related incidents increasing by 28% between 2014 and 2018 and incidents involving missing people rising by 46% between 2013/14 and 2016/17.
Policing is struggling to keep pace with these changes, the report says, with local forces unable to deal effectively with internet-enabled crimes such as fraud and cybercrime.
The review is half completed and is set to conclude in June next year. The second phase will look at how the police must respond to challenges set out in the first phase. It is funded by charitable donations from the Dawes Trust, Deloitte and CGI. LINK
Problemele rușilor nu sunt cu Putin, ci în directă legãturã cu prețul petrolului. Dacã, așa cum previzionez, lumea va intra într-o paradigmă revoluționarã și d.p.d.v. tehno-economic, atunci rușii (ca și arabii) vor vedea cum "castelele" din petro-dolari încep a se clãtina (preaviz pentru prãbușire). Deja Rusia nu mai e nr.2 decât d.p.d.v militar. Din celelalte perspective, China e acum challenger pentru dominația SUA - iar în timp banii vor crește și arsenalul Beijing-ului.
Aici cred că se află și motivul simpatiei Trump - Putin. Dacă aș fi nr.2, de ce aș ajuta nr.3 ? Să mi-o ia ínainte, și să ajung eu 3, doar din dorința de-a lovi ín nr.1? Sau m-aș resemna a fi 2, coalizându-mă (conjunctural) cu 1 pentru a bloca ascensiunea lui 3 ?
Rãmâne de vãzut. Rușii deocamdatã nu iau poziție în ceea ce devine, pe zi ce trece, un evident "rãzboi rece" între galbeni și anglo-saxoni. Așteaptã, calculează...căci de manevrele ce le vor face ín următorii 5 ani va depinde viitorul Rusiei (ca mare putere).
Si domnul Terentius si eu le-am recomandat cititorilor acestui forum lectura cartilor lui Alvin Toffler.
Dezvoltarea unor forme alternative de energie va crea "perdanti intr-o lume post-hidrocarburi", precum Arabia Saudita, Iran, Irak, cateva state din zona Golfului Persic, dar si Rusia si Venezuela.
Statele Unite ale Americii vor depinde de China pentru a se aproviziona cu sapte metale rare, indispensabile pentru fabricarea unor bunuri de larg consum, dar si a unor dispozitive si produse specifice, precum radarele, armamentul, instalatiile eoliene si automobilele hibrid. LINK
The Five Eyes intelligence alliance could be expanded to include Japan and broadened into a strategic economic relationship that pools key strategic reserves such as critical minerals and medical supplies, according to centre-right MPs working internationally to decouple the west from China.
The coronavirus crisis has revealed the west’s key strategic dependencies on China, and plans will be announced shortly under Five Eyes auspices for a major increase in production of rare and semi-rare metals from Australia, Canada, and America in order to reduce dependency on Chinese stocks.
Critical minerals, known as rare earth elements, are the key components in a wide range of consumer products including mobile phones, laptops and TVs, and have widespread defence applications in jet engines, satellites, lasers and missiles. On average, China has accounted for more than 90% of the global production and supply of rare earths during the past decade, according to the US Geological Survey. LINK
***
Revealed: QAnon Facebook groups are growing at a rapid pace around the world Guardian investigation finds the Facebook communities are gaining followers as Twitter cracks down on QAnon content
New and established QAnon groups on Facebook are growing at a rapid pace and helping to spread the baseless and dangerous conspiracy theory to new countries around the world, a Guardian investigation has found.
The Guardian has documented more than 170 QAnon groups, pages and accounts across Facebook and Instagram with more than 4.5 million aggregate followers. The Guardian has also documented dedicated communities for QAnon followers in at least 15 countries on Facebook.
The growth in the QAnon Facebook communities has come as rival social media platform Twitter undertook a broad crackdown on content and accounts dedicated to the conspiracy theory, citing the movement’s “clear and well-documented informational, physical, societal and psychological offline harm”.
At the time of Twitter’s crackdown, anonymous sources told the New York Times that Facebook was planning to take “similar steps” at some point this month. In the meantime, Facebook’s recommendation algorithm has continued to promote QAnon groups to users and some groups have experienced explosive growth.
QAnon is a baseless internet conspiracy theory whose followers believe that Donald Trump is waging a secret war against a “deep state” cabal of Democrats and Hollywood celebrities engaging in pedophilia and sex trafficking. The theory evolved from the 2016 “pizzagate” conspiracy theory and has grown to have real-world political impact. Numerous QAnon adherents are running for elected office as Republicans; the FBI has identified QAnon as a potential domestic terrorism threat.
In late June, the Guardian reported that the QAnon community on Facebook included more than 100 Facebook pages, profiles, groups and Instagram accounts with at least 1,000 followers or members each. The largest of those groups had more than 150,000 followers or members, and overall the accounts, groups and pages counted more than 3 million aggregate followers or members.
As of Sunday 9 August, the aggregate following of those previously documented groups, pages and accounts had grown by 34% to over 4m. The largest groups have grown to include more than 200,000 members.
The Guardian also documented an additional 73 groups and pages dedicated to QAnon with at least 1,000 followers or members each. Many of those 73 groups are brand new – founded in May 2020 or later – and they have already amassed an aggregate following of more than 560,000 people.
These newer groups and pages also demonstrate the spread of QAnon around the world. They include groups dedicated to QAnon followers in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania, Serbia and Slovenia. The largest international QAnon groups documented by the Guardian were German, Italian, Polish, Dutch, Australian and British.
“Enforcing against QAnon on Facebook is not new: we consistently take action against accounts, Groups, and Pages tied to QAnon that break our rules,” a Facebook spokesperson who asked not to be identified by name due to safety concerns said in a statement. “Just last week, we removed a large Group with QAnon affiliations for violating our content policies, and removed a network of accounts for violating our policies against coordinated inauthentic behavior. We have teams assessing our policies against QAnon and are currently exploring additional actions we can take.”
The removed group had nearly 200,000 members and was banned for repeated violations of Facebook’s rules against bullying, harassment, hate speech and harmful misinformation. A spokesperson at the time confirmed that the removal was a “one-off” enforcement action and not part of any broader policy shift. The network removed for coordinated inauthentic behavior was relatively tiny, with just 1,600 followers on Facebook and 7,200 on Instagram.
An internal investigation by Facebook found thousands of QAnon groups and pages with more than 3 million aggregate followers, NBC News reported on Monday. Those figures were part of the preliminary results of an investigation into QAnon by Facebook employees obtained by NBC News. Facebook has been looking into QAnon “since at least June”, according to the report.
“The response from all social platforms to the harm and threat of QAnon has been slow and anemic,” said Travis View, a researcher and co-host of QAnon Anonymous, a podcast that documents and debunks QAnon. “But Facebook stands alone in how much it has enabled this conspiracy theory-driven extremist community.”
“Not content with merely hosting QAnon propaganda, Facebook continues to recommend QAnon groups to users, essentially providing free marketing for a movement that has already inspired people to commit terrorism, murder and conspiracy to commit kidnapping,” View added.
Facebook is considering an approach to QAnon similar to its policies on anti-vaccine propaganda, according to NBC News. Such an approach would probably involve removing groups from search results and Facebook’s recommendation algorithms rather than banning them outright.
Brian Friedberg, a senior researcher at the Harvard Shorenstein Center’s Technology and Social Change Project, warned that Facebook needs to be incredibly careful about how it manages any crackdown on QAnon, especially with the election approaching. Since QAnon adherents already believe that the truth of secret pedophile cabals is being suppressed by the liberal media, a crackdown could serve to reinforce unfounded beliefs.
“We want to stop QAnon because it’s degrading trust in our institutions, spreading medical misinformation and potentially fostering violent extremism,” Friedberg said. “Without an explanation as to why QAnon content is being banned, this is not going to do anything to deter the beliefs of the communities.”
Friedberg said that effectively combating QAnon will probably require “factual interventions” from conservative media outlets and leaders who are trusted by those most likely to believe in QAnon – older, white, conservative evangelical Christians.
“As QAnon seems to be largely centered around support for Trumpian politics, there needs to be intervention from the conservative members of their trusted partners,” he said. “What if PragerU decided to do a two-week-long series debunking QAnon?
“The goal isn’t the suppression of speech,” he added. “The goal is rebuilding trust in our institutions and electoral politics.”
Tezele lui A.Toffler sunt, íntr-adevàr, din ce ín ce mai actuale. Nu m-am lămurit încă dacă ideile sale proveneau din analize predictive sau erau teze programatice, ínsă manifestarea lor, ín prezent, este clar sesizabilă. *** Cât despre extinderea largă a ideației Q-Anon pe rețelele de socializare, faptul nu constituie o surpriză. Cine a conceput această operațiune exact asta a avut în plan - toată construcția a fost gândită ca interactivă. Cum bine observa și "Washington Post", fenomenul se prezintă ca un "joc", totodată ca un "reality show". Participanții se íntrec în a completa insinuările din "Q-drops", aglomerând (chiar forțat) zeci de idei / argumente, pe felurite linii de divagație (de unde și ínmulțirea "grupurilor"). Evident, multe sunt aiureli "de tavernă", multe sunt contradictorii...dar scopul nu a fost niciodată edificarea unei narațiuni coerente și valide.
Scopul a fost creșterea exponențială a adepților (a se citi votanți sau simpatizanți) și impunerea tezelor în mentalul colectiv. Treptat, scopul e pe cale să fie atins, iar demersul nu va suferi din blocajele Twitter / Facebook. Ba chiar dimpotrivā.
Concluzii personale de etapa, cele mai multe confirmand ce a spus deja domnul Cassius:
Am o singura rezerva fata de ce a spus deja dumnealui, nu sunt atat de sigur ca... nici nu stiu cum sa-i spun... cred ca psyop e cel mai potrivit cuvant... va avaria pe termen scurt atat de profund societatatea americana. Atentie marita! Nu am spus ca nu se poate intampla, am spus ca inca nu sunt sigur ca se va intampla. Cred mai degraba ca toata povestea asta a fost gandita pe un interval de timp mai mare, dar pandemia o precipita.
Cine e in spatele acestei actiuni e un megaprofesionist, asta ca sa nu spun un geniu.
Mesajele sunt deliberat evazive, si oricine le poate interpreta in orice fel, in functie de preconceptiile lui.
Momentan, unul dintre cele mai urate efecte secundare e ca ingrijorari absolut legitime sunt deturnate in moduri care le fac mai mult decat ridicole.
Miscarea va continua sa se extinda in America si in alte tari si sa capete din ce in ce mai mare viziblitate. Aici jurnalistii seriosi au o mare dilema, sa vorbeasca despre asta si mai cu seama in ce termeni sa vorbeasca, fiindca e un subiect extrem de delicat, implicit sa ii faca publicitate, sau sa o ignore cu riscul de a parea ca sunt parte a conspiratiei?
Lipsa de structura organizatorica a adeptilor QAnon ii face pe acestia vulnerabili la exploatarea de catre extrema dreapta. Legat de concluzia de mai sus, povestea asta merge pe niste carari deja batatorite si care si-au dovedit in trecut eficienta, imita aproape pas cu pas felul in care Hitler a ajuns la putere. Are toate ingredientele necesare, exista un grup mic de oameni uniti de o intensa credinta comuna, poate cuvantul "fanatici" suna prea dur dar asta sunt, exista o conspiratie a unor dusmani care trebuiesc exterminati, exista un cult al personalitatii liderului, exista credinta intr-o "izbavire", orice ar insemna aceasta izbavire, asadar...
Daca ar fi sa caut o similitudine cu ceva familiar publicului roman, as zice ca momentan, totul seamana cu o secta religioasa, sunt numeroase exemplele in care oameni absolut rezonabili care ajung sub influenta unor secte se comporta irational, niciun argument nu mai functioneaza in discutia cu ei, nu mai vad nimic in afara de povetele liderului sectei, a se vedea Gregorian Bivolaru - MISA.
Orice ar fi, povestea asta va influenta peisajul politic international in urmatorii ani si nu va putea fi ignorata.
Si acum intrebarea al carei raspuns ne ajuta sa intelegem cat de periculos sau dimpotriva, lipsit de pericol e acest psyop:
Oare ce au in comun toti acesti oameni care sunt adepti ferventi ai acestei miscari?
Am o singura rezerva fata de ce a spus deja dumnealui, nu sunt atat de sigur ca... nici nu stiu cum sa-i spun... cred ca psyop e cel mai potrivit cuvant... va avaria pe termen scurt atat de profund societatatea americana.
Nici eu nu cred asta. Cred cā raportul de cauzalitate e invers : Nu Q naște avariile societale, ci avariile au născut Q. Fenomenul se hrānește din problemele de acolo (și de aceea se extinde și în Europa,cāci neoliberalismul a produs fracturi / convulsii în tot arealul atlantic...ba chiar și la ruși,cu valența specifică - oligarhii).
Pârvu Florin wrote ...
Cred mai degraba ca toata povestea asta a fost gandita pe un interval de timp mai mare, dar pandemia o precipita. Cine e in spatele acestei actiuni e un megaprofesionist, asta ca sa nu spun un geniu.
De acord cu ambele afirmații. Doar că e vorba de o echipă, nu doar un individ (așa-zisul "Q"). Poate sunt din sfera intelligence...dar nu-i obligatoriu. Practicile manipulatorii nu mai sunt demult monopolul cuiva, iar personal cred că civilii sunt mult mai creativi ca militarii.
Pârvu Florin wrote ...
Legat de concluzia de mai sus, povestea asta merge pe niste carari deja batatorite si care si-au dovedit in trecut eficienta, imita aproape pas cu pas felul in care Hitler a ajuns la putere. Are toate ingredientele necesare, exista un grup mic de oameni uniti de o intensa credinta comuna, poate cuvantul "fanatici" suna prea dur dar asta sunt, exista o conspiratie a unor dusmani care trebuiesc exterminati, exista un cult al personalitatii liderului, exista credinta intr-o "izbavire", orice ar insemna aceasta izbavire, asadar...
Subscriu fără rezerve. Mai mult, cum Hitler nu a fost originea fenomenului nazist (ci doar principal exponent), nici Trump nu e originea acestor convulsii. Cine vrea să investigheze poate urma indiciul Freedom Caucus - doar că va atinge, după câteva scurte revelații,o încețoșare a firului (nu se poate aprofunda dincolo de anumite borne doar prin intermediul surselor deschise).
Pârvu Florin wrote ...
Si acum intrebarea al carei raspuns ne ajuta sa intelegem cat de periculos sau dimpotriva, lipsit de pericol e acest psyop:
Oare ce au in comun toti acesti oameni care sunt adepti ferventi ai acestei miscari?
Comprimând într-o sintagmă, numitorul comun este anti-establishment. Și aici intră, eclectic și /sau interșanjabil: extrema dreaptă, stângă, anarhiști, nihiliști, fundamentaliști religioși, persoane defavorizate de evoluția tehnologiilor, persoane lovite de consecințele globalizării, persoane scârbite de "statul-spectacol", etc...etc. Precum se vede, plaja e f. largă. Ínsumarea acestor multiple categorii (cu redundanțele implicite) se apropie galopant de nivelul unei majorități (fie ea și "simplă", 50% + 1). Căci susținătorii (beneficiarii) "sistemului" sunt íntotdeauna minoritari. Atu-ul lor de bază e că majoritatea (ceilalți) e fracționată (divide et impera).
De aceea Trump tot invocă "majoritatea tăcută". Iar echipa "Q" încearcă operaționalizarea conceptului.
‘Guns are a way to exercise power’: how the idea of overthrowing the government became mainstream
Josh Horwitz says the concept of a violent insurrection is at the heart of American gun culture; and that guns will be used to settle political disputes
Josh Horwitz has been an American gun control activist for nearly 30 years. In 2009, he co-wrote a book warning that the idea of armed revolt against the government was at the center of the US gun rights movement.
Now, after a year that has seen heavily armed men show up at state capitols in Virginia, Michigan, Idaho and elsewhere to confront Democratic lawmakers over gun control and coronavirus restrictions, more Americans are taking gun owners’ rhetoric about “tyrants” seriously. Some of the same armed protesters who showed up at Michigan’s state house and at a pro-gun rally this summer were charged last week with conspiring to kidnap Michigan’s governor and put her on trial for tyranny.
Other members of the “boogaloo” movement have allegedly murdered law enforcement officers in California and plotted acts of violence across the country in hopes of sparking a civil war.
Horowitz spoke to the Guardian about how mainstream the idea of insurrection has become in American politics, and why lawmakers have failed to challenge it for decades.
The conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.
You argue in your book that the idea of violent insurrection against the American government is at the heart of American gun culture. What do you mean by that?
There’s a belief among some American gun owners that the second amendment is highly individualized and was placed in the constitution as an individual right to fight government tyranny. Therefore, each individual has the right to own whatever and however many weapons they want, free from any government interference. A licensing law or a universal background check law would mean the government knows who’s got a gun. If you believe there’s an individual right to insurrection, you can’t have any gun laws.
The drive to purchase semi-automatic assault weapons, like AR-15s, those weapons are often not purchased for self-defense, but for fear of government tyranny.
When the NRA says, “Vote Freedom First”, it’s not “Vote self-defense first”. They mean you get to decide when the government becomes tyrannical. The problem is that one person’s tyranny is another’s universal healthcare bill.
Is this concept of “insurrection” as the reason Americans should have unrestricted gun rights a very fringe idea?
It’s not every gun owner. But this movement is way larger than people think. And guns are now seen by a large portion of that community as a tool for political dissent.
When National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre says things like, “The guys with the guns make the rules”, or politicians and elected officials say, “We will rely on second amendment remedies”, what they mean is that people with guns will, in fact, set the political agenda and settle political disputes. That is a profoundly undemocratic idea. As Abe Lincoln famously said, “Any appeal from the ballot box to the bullet box must fail.” We are a country based on the rule of law. Guns don’t make you a super citizen with the ability to make special rules or have special political influence because you happen to be armed.
Where does this “insurrectionary idea” come from? When did it take hold?
The idea that individuals have the right to fight against tyranny is as old as the republic. But you can trace the modern incarnation of this principle to the early 1990s, and the rise of the militia movement during Bill Clinton’s presidency, when national gun violence prevention laws, including the assault weapons ban and background checks, were instituted. There’s a path from Ruby Ridge and Waco [deadly standoffs between citizens and federal agents, both involving illegal gun charges] to the Oklahoma City bombing. The Michigan militia is where Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, got this start. He was making his living at gun shows. He bought fully into the gun rights agenda, and he ended up killing a lot of kids. I started to pick up the resurgence of this idea in the mid-2000s, at the end of Bush’s presidency and the beginning of Obama’s presidency.
How does racism play into this idea of “insurrection” and its place in US politics?
There is a big racial element to this. White men, especially, are feeling that the political reins of power are pulling away from them, and their grip on power is falling away. Guns are a way to exercise power, let’s face it. Power over policy. Power over people.
You first published Guns, Democracy and the Insurrectionist Idea in 2009. What kind of response did it get?
People didn’t react the way that I hoped, by saying: this is going to be a big deal unless we move forcefully to oppose it. Instead, a lot of elected officials, including a lot of Democratic elected officials, acquiesced to the idea of an insurrectionary second amendment. People running for president in 2004 and 2008 would use lines like, “The second amendment isn’t for hunting. It has to do with protecting ourselves, our homes, our families and our country from tyranny.” Nobody followed up with: “What do you mean? You think it’s OK to shoot politicians?”
This year, we saw the Michigan legislature taken over, the Idaho legislature taken over, and it’s like – there’s no opprobrium. There’s a sort of, “boys will be boys” response.
Why has politicians’ response to rhetoric about violent revolt been so muted?
I think there’s the idea that if this really happened, the US army would just mow these people down. “Oh, it’d be suicide if they did that.” But the US military should not be deployed in civilian places to begin with. What are we going to do, have tanks on our own soil? We’re not going to do that. The other thing is that this movement is really well armed. There’s a lot of firepower in civilian hands: .50 caliber sniper rifles, AR-15s, AK-47s.
If they really did it, it would be very, very complicated.
How significant are the numbers of US military members and police who personally believe in this insurrectionist idea themselves? This year, US military veterans and active duty service members have been charged in a number of violent plots, including some that were allegedly designed to spark a civil war.
There are some elements of law enforcement that are sympathetic to this. A lot are not, especially those in leadership. I have friends in the military, and, to many of them, this idea is complete anathema. But a lot of the demographics in the military are young white men who like guns. I do think the vast majority of law enforcement and the military will do their duty, but that doesn’t mean that everyone will.
What shifts have you seen since 2009 in how insurrectionism is playing out?
There’s been a huge change in the last four years, since Trump came to power. He doesn’t condemn violence. What he said about Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer was awful. When he’s asked about a peaceful transition of power and he hedges, I believe it’s because he thinks he has a private militia that will back him up.
The insurrectionist idea is about fighting government tyranny, but it would be especially dangerous if it became in service of particular officials, and that’s what you’re seeing now.
What’s also changed: the amount of weapons that the boys have these days is obscene. The number of AR-15s and high-capacity magazines and assault weapons they have should scare anybody.
Are you worried that there could be a major insurrection against the US government?
Yes.
My fear is that there will be violence if the election is contested, or if it looks like Trump’s losing. I worry that there will be efforts at intimidating election officials and voters.
I’ve always been concerned about the one-off person, the lone wolf who takes these ideas to the max. I am much more concerned now about organized efforts to subvert elections, democratic power, courts.
You issued a report focused on how states can ban gun-carrying at polling places. Are you concerned about what could happen on election day itself?
I don’t think there’s going to be widespread violence at the polls. I think there will be places where people with guns will attempt to intimidate voters, but not by shooting or anything like that, and I think those places will be relatively rare. It’s really important that each polling place knows what their rights are, but I think there’s been enough time to get them up to speed. I don’t want people to be scared: the ultimate response to the insurrectionary second amendment is to go vote.
What do you think should be done now in response to all of this public conversation about insurrection?
Number one: there needs to be a clear public response, that people who exercise this “right” are not patriots, but traitors.
The second piece is a policy response. We need to limit access to assault weapons. As soon as legislatures open in 2021, they should ban guns at polling places. I would like to see them banning open carry everywhere. Peaceful protesters are now routinely intimidated by armed insurrectionists. The way they intimidate people is by openly carrying weapons. We have proved we can’t handle that as a society.
And people who have the bully pulpit need to be careful not to endorse the idea of an insurrectionary second amendment. Even if you believe in an individual right to own a firearm, the purpose of that right cannot be to kill government officials.
Have you seen any tipping point in how Democratic politicians are now responding to this kind of insurrectionist rhetoric?
Let me be completely clear: the biggest problem is Republican elected officials, and the Republican who consistently use the insurrectionary idea and cheer on this type of behavior. While I wish Democrats would stand up and not just acquiesce, the Republican party has bought into a “second amendment remedies” idea that is now a danger, a grave danger, to America.
The Republican elected officials in Virginia thought the gun rights march on the state capitol was the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are plenty of Republican officials who just think this is great.
Într-adevăr, băieții "boogaloo" sunt afiliați, parțial, la retorica și mișcarea Q - iar printre ei sunt mulți "iuți la trăgaci". E posibil să nască oarece tulburări dacă pierde Trump, dar aceste zvâcniri nu vor depăși, ca durată, luna februarie, iar ca intensitate sunt departe de nivelul unui război civil. Cu toate acestea, riscul unei secesiuni existā, și cred cā va crește în următorii ani. Dar nu niște zurbagii vor detona situația, ci complexele politico-financiare (care diferā de la stat la stat în uniune). Ca și în 1861, de altfel. Numai naivii incurabili pot crede povești romantice cu "bunul" Lincoln care a luptat pentru amârâții de sclavi. Acolo a fost ciocnirea între "new-money" (yankeii industrialiști) și "old-money" (latifundiarii cu agriculturā / plantații). A fost un conflict generat de revoluția industrialā. Idem, in prezent s-au coagulat douā tabere distincte. Acum "new-money" sunt toți giganții IT (Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, ș.a.), in timp ce industrialiștii și dezvoltatorii clasici (petroliști, construcții, oțel..."coșuri de fum") au ajuns în postura de "old money". Istoria se repetā - acum fiind însā revoluția informaționalā. Așa se nasc conflictele de anvergurā, nu cā niște teribiliști vânturā arme de asalt (modificate oricum la semiautomat).
Dar pânā sā descâlcim revoluțiile ce-or veni, hait că avem distracție ! Trupa lui Trump bagă biata Românicā în ditamai ciocnirea electorală ! Ei, na că trăirām să ne hlizim și cu asta ! Mă întreb cât din fir vor trage ...că dacā îl deșiră prea mult pe Popoviciu și pe alții din coterii...s-or frige și niscaiva republicani de-ai lui Bush, nu numai democrații lui Biden. Să vezi ce de-a "Q" vor apare și la noi. Pe aceeași "rețetà" : unu' și cu altu' și cu trei legat de patru...iaca vinovatu'. Doar c-am uitat mandatu'...(n-am gàsit altă rimă, vorba lu' candidatu').
Popoviciu... Puiu Popoviciu... Ginerele lui Ion Dinca "Teleaga"... Ma intreb ce o mai fi facand... Cred ca se plictiseste la Londra si pleaca sa-si viziteze banii ,o luna in Monaco, luna urmatoare in Lichtenstein, apoi insula Afroditei, apoi Bahamas, apoi Belize, apoi Bermuda, apoi Panama, apoi...
Fiindca povestea mare e facuta din mai multe povesti mai mici o sa reamintesc si eu cititorilor acestui minunat topic o mai veche si umila contributie de-a mea la demonstratia faptului ca in in fiecare zi, cu largul concurs al politicienilor, serviciilor de informatii si justitiei, romanilor le sunt furati sistematic nu banii, ci viitorul. LINK
Nu vom putea afla niciodata cate astfel de bombe au existat si mai exista inca, dar vedem ce se intampla cand unele dintre ele explodeaza, Colectiv e cel mai bun exemplu.
Si probabil o sa mor si nu voi reusi sa inteleg cum de unii din low si middle managementul institutiilor de stat din Romania sunt atat de prosti incat sa se bucure de firimiturile care cad de la masa celor ca Popoviciu fara sa inteleaga ca intr-o tara normala ar trai ei insisi mult mai bine decat traiesc acum si fara sa inteleaga ca si copiii lor merg in aceleasi cluburi, mall-uri si magazine avizate sau autorizate pe spaga, ca circula pe aceleasi drumuri ca toti romanii si ca un sofer cu permisul de conducere luat la Pitesti ii poate ucide si pe ei si pe copiii lor, fara sa inteleaga ca infectiilor nosocomiale nu le pasa de grade si mai stiu eu ce...
Întrucât trecu și ultima dezbatere Trump - Biden, câteva păreri:
1) O fi clasa noastrà politicà penibilă, dar nici cei din SUA nu-s vreo lumină. Dacă dezbaterea din septembrie a fost un bâlci, plin de întreruperi și atacuri la persoanā, asta de acum fu o plictisealā redundantā, ambii candidați nefăcând decât sā reia, obositor, aceleași și aceleași...și aceleași abordări.
2) Deși nu sunt fan Trump, ca persoanā, aș fi votat cu el, ipotetic, dat fiind că mă consider un conservator, mai degrabā decât un "progresist". Totuși, mă vād silit, obiectiv fiind, sā recunosc cā "blondul" m-a dezamăgit. Nu a putut specula inabilitățile lui Biden, demonstrând cā nu are talent oratoric (puseurile de tip "mahala" neputând echivala o veritabilā persuasiune).
3) Argumente precum liantele de corupție cu Ucraina / România, deși sunt convins cā au doze de adevăr, n-au putut fi substanțial demonstrate - și, oricum, America de azi nu mai e atât de sensibilă la acest aspect ca în vremea Watergate. Deci...dacă ăsta a fost "ultimul cartuș" al lui Trump...sănătate !
De n-ar fi fost încâlcita dinamică a sistemului de electori, aș zice că republicanii vor pierde. Totuși, e posibil ca matematica oportunistă a lui Trump să funcționeze și acum ca în 2016 - presupunând că ăilalți n-au învățat nimic de atunci încoace. Dar dacă va fi (iarăși) așa, SUA vor fi un mare butoi de pulbere. Și așa persistă incā tensiunile pandemiei și BLM...dacă va fi cu renumărări, contestații la Curtea Supremă, etc...vom avea ce vedea la știri.
Iar clivajele se vor adânci. Nu c-ar fi implacabile, dar Biden nu are deloc stofa unei personalități memorabile, care sā poatā reface punți peste prăpăstii. Pe de altă parte, nici Trump n-are...așa că evoluțiile vor fi pe deplin determinate de (calitatea ?) sistemului.
Forums
Oricum, sa nu ai mari aspiratii in cariera ...esti foarte slab. 
,o luna in Monaco, luna urmatoare in Lichtenstein, apoi insula Afroditei, apoi Bahamas, apoi Belize, apoi Bermuda, apoi Panama, apoi...
