ASSAULT ON THE CAPITOL: 2021, 1917, 1792

Sociologist Randall Collins writes Jan. 28, 2021:

* The iconic image of January 6 is a protestor sitting with his feet up on Nancy Pelosi’s desk, and another in the Senate Chair. These are reminiscent of Sergei Eisenstein’s 1928 film, October, a documentary of the Russian revolution of November 1917. Attacking the seat of government in Petersburg, the Winter Palace, revolutionary soldiers break into the Czarina’s bedroom: amused by uncovering the jeweled top of her chamber pot, then ripping through her feather-bedding with their bayonets. The same in the French Revolution in its many repetitions between 1789 and 1792, and its replay in 1848, where the crowd took turns sitting on the vacant throne after the guards had collapsed and the royal family had fled.

There are differences, of course. The 1917 and 1792 revolutions were successful in overthrowing the government. The 2021 Capitol assault may have had few such ambitions in the minds of most protestors; and in any case, they occupied the outer steps of the Capitol for five hours and penetrated the corridors and chambers inside for three-and-a-half, with momentum on their side for less than an hour.

The similarities are more in short-term processes: The building guards putting up resistance at first, then losing cohesion, retreating, fading away; some fraternizing with the assaulting crowd, their sympathies wavering. They had weapons but most failed to use them.

Higher up the chain of command, widespread hesitation, confusion, conversations and messages all over the place without immediate results. Reinforcements are called for; reinforcements are promised; reinforcements are coming but they don’t arrive. Recriminations in the aftermath of January 6 have concentrated on this official hesitation and lack of cooperation, and on weakness and collusion among the police.

In fact it is a generic problem. Revolutions and their contemporary analogues all start in an atmosphere of polarization, masses mobilizing themselves, authorities trying to keep them calm and sustain everyday routine. Crowd-control forces, whether soldiers or police, are caught in the middle. At the outset of surging crowds, there is always someplace where the guards are locally outnumbered, pressed not just physically but by the noise and emotional force of the crowd. They usually know that using their superior firepower can provoke the crowds even further. Sometimes they try it; sometimes they try a soft defense; in either case they have a morale problem. If there is a tipping point where they retreat, the crowd surges to its target, and is temporarily in control.

From this point of view, the lesson of January 6 is how protective forces regain control relatively quickly. Comparing the Winter Palace on the night of October 26, 1917* or the Tuileries Palace on August 10, 1792, tells us what makes for tipping points that wobble for a bit but then recover; or not.

* Looting and ritual destruction

By ritual destruction I mean behavior that is seemingly purposeless, to outsiders and opponents. But it is meaningful, or at least deeply impulsive, for those who do it: a collective, social emotion for those involved.

Looting is generally of this sort. It rarely takes anything of value. In riots, including those that take place in electrical black-outs, the early looters tend to be professional thieves, but the crowds that come out to look and see broken-in store fronts are often caught with goods that they have no use for; they just join in the collective mood, a holiday from moral restraints when everything seems available for free. (This is also visible in photos taken during the looting phase of riots.)

In political protests and uprisings, looting does something else. Usually in the first phase of riot, especially a neighbourhood riot, after the first confrontation with the police, there is a lull while the police withdraw from the outnumbering crowd to regroup and bring reinforcements. In this lull, the emotional mood will drain away unless there is something for the crowd to do. Looting is a way to keep the riot going– sometimes along with arson, even if it means burning your own neighbourhood; the smoke and flames in the sky carry a visual message of how serious the situation is. And looting is made possible, and easy, because police are visibly absent. Without opposition, the atmosphere is like a holiday; and at least temporarily it is a victory over the absent enemy. Looting is emotionally easy; there is no face-to-face confrontation. It provides a kind of pseudo-victory over the symbols of the enemy.

This was the situation in the Capitol after about 3 p.m. The attackers had been driven back from their political targets. Heavily equipped and menacing-looking tactical police squads are now pushing back the crowd, chiefly in the dense areas of the Capitol around the Rotunda. But it is a building with several wings and multiple floors, numerous stairs, a labyrinth of offices. This is the period when rioters spread out, penetrating far-flung corners where the last would not be dislodged until after 5 p.m. This is when the looting and ritual destruction mostly took place.

A prime target was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. Looters flipped over tables, ripped photos off the walls, damaged her name plate on the door. One of her laptops was stolen, as were those in other offices. The office of the Senate Parliamentarian was ransacked, as were other offices. Some places had graffiti: “Murder the media” was one of them, at Press rooms with damaged recording and broadcast equipment. These we can interpret as specific political targets.

Broken doors and cracked or smashed windows were throughout the building, leaving the floors littered with glass and debris. Some of this happened in the process of breaking into locked areas. But it continued in remote office spaces; presumably this was ritualistic destruction, just prolonging the attack– precisely in places where guards were not present, while their main force was concentrated elsewhere.

Photos taken in the aftermath do not show a great deal of trash or destruction in the main corridors. Some of the furniture piled up was from improvised barricades by the defenders. Art works in the main galleries and display areas were not attacked– presumably these had little meaning as enemy targets for the intruders. Some statues and portraits were covered with “corrosive gas agent residue”– this would include tear gas and smoke bombs set off by the defenders, and (perhaps a small amount of) bear spray used by the attackers. In other words, this damage was an unintended by-product of the fighting that took place. Note too that these were “non-violent” weapons, designed to drive away opponents and avoiding lethal force.

If the looting and ritual destruction was intended to be a symbolic attack upon the Capitol, it succeeded in frightening and angering its officials. It was a ritualistic exercise on both sides– which is to say, a war of emotions.

* What was unusual about the Capitol assault of January 6, 2021 was how quickly and easily it was defeated. Yes, it had factional splits and dispersed centers of command, wavering and dissenting about sending reinforcements; it had police retreating before an aggressive crowd; reluctance to shoot; some fraternization between attackers and guards; some ritualistic looting at the end. It had a background of long-standing and accumulating tension between two sides, counter-escalating social movements, politicians jumping on and off of bandwagons. But in historical comparison, it had no overwhelming consensus that the regime was toppling, much less that it ought to topple. The assault was defeated, in a momentum swing of about an hour, and with an historical minimum of serious casualties. That it could be put down so easily is a testament to American institutions. [In a] federal democracy, with powers shared and divided at many levels among executives, legislatures, and courts, there is no place to turn the switch that controls everything. Decentralized democracies like the USA can have civil wars– if geographical splits are severe enough and include the armed forces; but it cannot have coups at the top or revolutions in the Capitol.

Posted in America | Comments Off on ASSAULT ON THE CAPITOL: 2021, 1917, 1792

Beverly Hills Rally For Israel – United Against Terrorism (5-23-21)

David Suissa writes:

When we reached Santa Monica Boulevard, across the street we saw an ocean of people waving large Israeli flags. We could hear music and chanting. There was a festival atmosphere. We were immersed in a whole different kind of noise.

I’m sure lots of people were there because they’re outraged and angry at the rise in antisemitism. But I didn’t feel any anger among the crowd. What I felt was more like solidarity, and what I saw were joyful faces.

Maybe it was the fact that so many people were gathered around a common cause that made them feel safe and put a smile on their faces. Maybe it was the cool Israeli music. Maybe it was the sparkling blue sky. Whatever it was, I felt a mood of celebration.

Perhaps people were celebrating the very fact that they are not alone; that plenty of other people feel the same way, feel the same love.

There may be lots of loud Jew-haters out there, but on this Sunday in Beverly Hills, not far from where Jews were assaulted recently at a sushi restaurant, Jews came out to make their own statement: We’re proud to be Jews, we stand with Israel against terrorism, we stand against the evil of antisemitism, and we aren’t going anywhere.

Deep down, they came to express love, a love for a cause they cherish and believe in. That noise of love needs to drown out the noise of hate.

https://www.foxla.com/video/936281
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/05/23/photos-hundreds-rally-for-israel-in-beverly-hills-los-angeles/
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/man-arrested-in-attack-on-jewish-men-outside-la-restaurant/2601595/
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-19/l-a-sushi-restaurant-attack-is-being-investigated-as-an-antisemitic-hate-crime
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/fight-beverly-grove-sushi-fumi-restaurant-hate-crime-lapd-investigation/2598874/
https://patch.com/california/beverlyhills/pro-israel-rally-draws-2000-people-beverly-hills
https://abc7.com/antisemitism-rally-jewish-israel-palestine/10685474/

2,000 Activists Gather in Beverly Hills to Support Israel


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9611923/From-Beverly-Hills-Ground-Zero-Pro-Israel-Palestinian-rallies-remain-largely-peaceful.html

Posted in Beverly Hills | Comments Off on Beverly Hills Rally For Israel – United Against Terrorism (5-23-21)

Globalist Elites Doubled Our Lifespans (5-23-21)

00:00 ‘Take a good look at who is speaking out against Jew-hate. And who is staying silent.’ https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-new-furies-of-the-oldest-hatred
32:00 Nightwave Radio Banned From YouTube, Panhandling Intensifies
35:00 Is podcasting getting back to radio? https://www.buzzsprout.com/1215062/8094350
37:00 Why do people who leave California bash California?
48:30 DIVINE RIGHT: RICK WILES AND MILO YIANNOPOULOS TALK ABOUT PAGAN LEFT, https://www.bitchute.com/video/gof6Nr223T4C/
1:00:00 New York’s prospective teachers will no longer have to pass controversial literacy exam, https://ny.chalkbeat.org/2017/3/13/21111588/it-s-official-new-york-s-prospective-teachers-will-no-longer-have-to-pass-controversial-literacy-exa
1:37:00 Do whites suffer from pathological altruism? https://odysee.com/@TRSDotBiz:a/the-culture-of-kmac-hour-2:9
1:51:00 Steven Johnson: Extra Life: A Short History of Living Longer, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ15cEW06qA
1:56:00 Experts challenge ‘virus warfare’ reporting, https://youtu.be/NHGaDBVXGfc?t=259
2:02:00 A critique of Nicholas Wade’s essay on Covid’s origins, https://www.econlib.org/the-real-story/
2:23:00 Nicholas Wade: the case for the Covid lab-leak theory, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVVE6MD7tRw
2:27:00 BAKED ALASKA GETTING KICKED OUT & YELLING AT MASK WEARERS
2:32:00 Alex Jones on medical dictatorship in 2009
2:33:00 Sam Hyde: Level Up In Life And You Will Become A Threat To Them
2:38:20 Why I SOLD All of My Bitcoins… IT’S OVER., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFp86n7QCf0
2:44:00 Why Bill Gates’ Wife Left Him, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiW3RDmF_78
3:07:00 Do you care about you?
3:07:30 Revenge of the CIS on anti-Jewish attacks, https://youtu.be/JZepl3BmENY?t=5403
3:10:00 Goyim Defense League
3:16:00 Is Tim Pool a Grifter?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3vyF_1je_I
3:20:30 Anti-Semitic Attacks SURGE As Israel-Hamas Cease-Fire Holds

Posted in America | Comments Off on Globalist Elites Doubled Our Lifespans (5-23-21)

Were The Lockdowns Good Or Bad?

00:00 Taking an Uber/Lyft these days is like playing the lotto
02:00 On a date when surge pricing hits
03:00 My nightmare about trying to record on my iphone before a UCLA panel discussion
05:00 The Etiology of Victimology | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSrDiBMHEtw
10:00 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/what-thomas-kuhn-really-thought-about-scientific-truth/
16:00 What is post-modernism? https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=139495
24:00 Thomas Kuhn, The Spanish Flu & Covid-19, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGNqM-ChiJk
31:00 Jews under attack in USA
42:00 Matt Parrott on Unite the Right lawsuits
46:00 Ten common sense ways to avoid being sued, https://sites.hanover.com/articles/architects-engineers-avoiding-lawsuits.html
1:01:00 DAVE REILLY: THE COMMONALITY IN THE SITUATIONS OF WESTMEN AND THE PALESTINIANS, https://www.bitchute.com/video/e8GfPMotyze3/
1:05:30 Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L70T4pQv7P8
1:09:00 Charlottesville — Unite the Right — the Aftermath | Jared Taylor/Jason Kessler, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc43nql2g_w
1:14:00 Male virgins
1:26:00 CBS Host GRILLS Netanyahu: Are You Killing People to Stay in Power?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAzy4Z2WGgc
1:30:00 Israel’s Military Inflicted a Heavy Toll. But Did It Achieve Its Aim?, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-war-ceasefire.html
1:31:00 Mike Enoch calls Vanity Fair writer Peter Savodnik about US State Dept. official Matthew Gebert’s connection to TRS, https://odysee.com/@TRSDotBiz:a/say-no-ask-zionism-israel:0
1:34:00 Matthew Gebert: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know, https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/matthew-gebert/
1:50:00 Thomas Baden-Riess vs Greg Johnson, https://odysee.com/@ThomasBadenRiess:7/FuckGregJohnson:8
1:57:00 Thomas Baden-Riess still hates Keith Woods, https://odysee.com/@ThomasBadenRiess:7/HateKeithWoods:e
2:02:20 Kevin MacDonald talks to Mike Enoch about Nathan Cofnas, https://odysee.com/@TRSDotBiz:a/the-culture-of-kmac-hour-1:0
2:11:00 Dutton and Spencer on the Impossibility of Jewish Nationalism, https://odysee.com/@radix:c/jewish-nationalism:8
2:14:00 Noah Smith: Yes, lockdowns were good, https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/yes-lockdowns-were-good
2:22:00 The evidence is clear — COVID lockdowns saved lives without harming economies, https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-05-19/covid-lockdowns-worked
2:29:45 Terry Marks-Tarlow: Embodied creativity & the courage to face uncertainty, https://www.relationalimplicit.com/marks-tarlow/
2:40 The fear of emasculation, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=139480
2:42:00 Dennis Prager on the Left and anti-semitism
2:46:00 Deconstructing John Oliver on Israel and Palestine, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrZ9Ki1OI2o
3:04:00 GDL triggers Mersh, https://www.bitchute.com/video/sVQKAJfTCIEF/
3:07:00 Tucker on the origins of Covid
3:20:00 Tucker on America’s crime surge
3:25:20 OJ Simpson on Tim Tebow
3:27:00 MICHELLE MALKIN DISCUSSES NICK FUENTES’ UNCONSTITUTIONAL PLACEMENT ON THE NO-FLY LIST
3:30:00 NICK FUENTES || WHY’S THE REGIME SUDDENLY BLAMING THE WUHAN LAB AGAIN? https://www.bitchute.com/video/Q9taWwWEqqnU/
3:33:00 Ed Dutton: Why We’re On the Brink of an Overpopulation Crisis, Famine and an Unprecedented Population Collapse, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmhEOQuUahU

Posted in America | Comments Off on Were The Lockdowns Good Or Bad?

What Is Post-Modernism?

Comments at Andrew Gelman:

* “Postmodernism” in the humanities and humanistic social sciences arose out of the failure of the mid-century modernist idea that you could treat human beings and their behavior like classical-physics particles–categorizing them, modeling them, and predicting them, all according to stable rules. It turned out that people are more complicated than that, and also that the very terms of your categories and models (your language, your political institutions) shape the human beings you’re supposedly analyzing at a remove. Things are a lot less stable than modernists hoped. So all the theories that get lumped together as “postmodernism” are basically an attempt to say, “now what?”

Like many other sets of academic ideas or theories, they share powerful insights and also some pretty big problems, and like every other idea or theory, sometimes they are applied well and usefully, and sometimes they degenerate into self-parody. There is definitely nonsense among the humanities, and on the margin humanists could probably be a little more active in clearing it out. What the humanities aren’t, despite their critics, is **indifferent** to truth, as you suggest they are. Even if postmodernists do think that we need to think harder about what “truth” means and how we as imperfect human observers can ever access it, they aren’t callous about it.

In fact, that humility towards knowledge is an area where you and the “postmodernists” you’re criticizing might well have something to talk about! It’s no good when lazy humanists criticize social science as “the approach of saying nonsense using a bunch of technical-sounding jargon,” and it’s not any more constructive the other way around. We all have a lot to learn from each other!

* About the (death of the) author. It’s been a while since I was interested in these issues, but the point is a subtle one. Take films (which might make the idea sound more intuitive). We talk about a Stanley Kubrick film, even though we realize there are a host of other creators involved in in the production of a movie (screenwriters, actors, etc). If you say the “director” is dead, you’re not saying a film has no director. You’re basically saying that a “director” can’t serve the purpose of saying that there is only “one” guiding voice that defines the only way to determine something as the director-function or the myth of the “Director” in the 20th century, would imply. Again, it’s not to say that directors as individuals don’t play a role, its just that the particular cultural/ideological idea of the director has changed.

* The death of the author is more about understanding that authors are grounded in context like all “truth”. That’s the over-arching postmodern message—truth isn’t “out there” X-files or Plato style. The world is out there, though, so things aren’t as ungrounded as the anti-postmodernist caricature might have you believe. The problem is that “truth” is a human construction grounded in vague and intertwined natural language. One has to start by asking what the unit of truth-bearing is. It’s certainly not the sentence, because sentences like “It is raining” have no meaning outside of the context in which they’re used.

JOHN HORGAN WRITES FOR SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN:

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions…may be the most influential treatise ever written on how science does (or does not) proceed. It is notable for having spawned the trendy term “paradigm.” It also fomented the now trite idea that personalities and politics play a large role in science. The book’s most profound argument was less obvious: scientists can never truly understand the “real world” or even each other.

…He nonetheless traced his view of science to an epiphany he experienced in 1947, when he was working toward a doctorate in physics at Harvard. While reading Aristotle’s Physics, Kuhn had become astonished at how “wrong” it was. How could someone who wrote so brilliantly on so many topics be so misguided when it came to physics?

Kuhn was pondering this mystery, staring out his dormitory window (“I can still see the vines and the shade two thirds of the way down”), when suddenly Aristotle “made sense.” Kuhn realized that Aristotle invested basic concepts with different meanings than modern physicists did. Aristotle used the term “motion,” for example, to refer not just to change in position but to change in general—the reddening of the sun as well as its descent toward the horizon. Aristotle’s physics, understood on its own terms, was simply different from rather than inferior to Newtonian physics.

Kuhn left physics for philosophy, and he struggled for 15 years to transform his epiphany into the theory set forth in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The keystone of his model was the concept of a paradigm. Paradigm, pre-Kuhn, referred merely to an example that serves an educational purpose; amo, amas, amat, for instance, is a paradigm for teaching conjugations in Latin. Kuhn used the term to refer to a collection of procedures or ideas that instruct scientists, implicitly, what to believe and how to work. Most scientists never question the paradigm. They solve “puzzles,” problems whose solutions reinforce and extend the scope of the paradigm rather than challenging it. Kuhn called this “mopping up,” or “normal science.” There are always anomalies, phenomena that that the paradigm cannot account for or that even contradict it. Anomalies are often ignored, but if they accumulate they may trigger a revolution (also called a paradigm shift, although not originally by Kuhn), in which scientists abandon the old paradigm for a new one.

Denying the view of science as a continual building process, Kuhn held that a revolution is a destructive as well as a creative act. The proposer of a new paradigm stands on the shoulders of giants (to borrow Newton’s phrase) and then bashes them over the head. He or she is often young or new to the field, that is, not fully indoctrinated. Most scientists yield to a new paradigm reluctantly. They often do not understand it, and they have no objective rules by which to judge it. Different paradigms have no common standard for comparison; they are “incommensurable,” to use Kuhn’s term. Proponents of different paradigms can argue forever without resolving their basic differences because they invest basic terms—motion, particle, space, time—with different meanings. The conversion of scientists is thus both a subjective and political process. It may involve sudden, intuitive understanding—like that finally achieved by Kuhn as he pondered Aristotle. Yet scientists often adopt a paradigm simply because it is backed by others with strong reputations or by a majority of the community.

Kuhn’s view diverged in several important respects from the philosophy of Karl Popper, who held that theories can never be proved but only disproved, or “falsified.” Like other critics of Popper, Kuhn argued that falsification is no more possible than verification; each process wrongly implies the existence of absolute standards of evidence, which transcend any individual paradigm. A new paradigm may solve puzzles better than the old one does, and it may yield more practical applications. “But you cannot simply describe the other science as false,” Kuhn said. Just because modern physics has spawned computers, nuclear power and CD players, he suggested, does not mean it is truer, in an absolute sense, than Aristotle’s physics. Similarly, Kuhn denied that science is constantly approaching the truth. At the end of Structure he asserted that science, like life on earth, does not evolve toward anything but only away from something…

“Different groups, and the same group at different times,” Kuhn told me, “can have different experiences and therefore in some sense live in different worlds.” Obviously all humans share some responses to experience, simply because of their shared biological heritage, Kuhn added. But whatever is universal in human experience, whatever transcends culture and history, is also “ineffable,” beyond the reach of language. Language, Kuhn said, “is not a universal tool. It’s not the case that you can say anything in one language that you can say in another.”

But isn’t mathematics a kind of universal language? I asked. Not really, Kuhn replied, since it has no meaning; it consists of syntactical rules without any semantic content.

…I said, the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus is either right or wrong; language and metaphysics are beside the point. Kuhn shook his head. “Whenever you get two people interpreting the same data in different ways,” he said, “that’s metaphysics.”

* He had a painful memory of sitting in on a seminar and trying to explain that the concepts of truth and falsity are perfectly valid, and even necessary—within a paradigm. “The professor finally looked at me and said, ‘Look, you don’t know how radical this book is.'” Kuhn was also upset to find that he had become the patron saint of all would-be scientific revolutionaries.

…Some fields, such as economics and other social sciences, never adhere to a paradigm because they address questions for which no paradigm will suffice. Fields that achieve consensus, or normalcy, to borrow Kuhn’s term, do so because their paradigms, or at least certain components of them, correspond to something real in nature. These paradigms—a few that come to mind are heliocentrism, the new synthesis, quantum mechanics, the Big Bang, the germ theory of infectious disease—rest not on transient, culturally constructed suppositions or inventions but on irrevocable discoveries. Why not call them true?

Posted in Philosophy | Comments Off on What Is Post-Modernism?