- https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback
"Luke Ford reports all of the 'juicy' quotes, and has been doing it for years." (Marc B. Shapiro)
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)"This generation's Hillel." (Nathan Cofnas)
Ingredients of Charismatic Leadership
Posted in Charisma
Comments Off on Ingredients of Charismatic Leadership
NYT: As Israel’s Dependence on U.S. Shrinks, So Does U.S. Leverage
00:00 Tucker Carlson Calls For Immigration Moratorium , https://vdare.com/posts/tucker-carlson-calls-for-immigration-moratorium-pause-as-we-ve-been-doing-for-more-than-20-years
05:00 George Floyd death anniversary marked by gun fire
11:00 What do ugly people do?
13:00 Why do some women like rough sex? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_BFndX5xWQ
15:00 Lovemaps: Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transposition In Childhood, Adolescence and Maturity, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=130433
17:00 Perversion: The Erotic Form Of Hatred, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=130652
20:00 The Dynamics Of Sexual Excitement, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=130652
30:00 The Date Master – Why Women Love Rough Sex, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPTY21HsHg0
36:00 NYT: As Israel’s Dependence on U.S. Shrinks, So Does U.S. Leverage, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/world/middleeast/Israel-American-support.html
45:30 David Pakman: I’ve Been Censoring Myself to Avoid Toxic Backlash, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwlGuTiY3ws
51:30 Pakistani Minister Drops Anti-Semitic Slur on CNN, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtq63W-sALI
54:30 Start your day with a mouthful of gay pride, https://www.unz.com/isteve/st-george-floyd-day-starts-off-with-a-culturally-appropriate-bang/
57:40 Greg Johnson of Counter Currents Interviews Jared Taylor about white identity
58:30 Book banning
1:05:00 Nick Fuentes vs Robert Barnes on the Middle East
1:11:30 Guillermo and OG Del Rancho get interviewed on the Anglo Question, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTDpyGqeAeQ
1:12:00 Why Matt Parrott hates Duginism
1:18:10 Richard Spencer on ethno-nationalism, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47mA9U9jlik
1:42:00 E. Michael Jones on ADL losing its bid to get Tucker Carlson fired, https://rumble.com/vhbeqf-e.-michael-jones-on-the-assault-on-free-speech-and-the-pro-life-requiem.html
2:50:40 Tucker Carlson leads with the topic of gender dysphoria
3:28:00 Sean Hannity opening on the MSM and the origins of Covid
https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a30026303/rough-sex-psychology/
https://www.lehmiller.com/blog/2017/4/28/why-we-crave-sexual-novelty
https://www.redbookmag.com/love-sex/sex/a47424/why-women-like-rough-sex/
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/a31879/rough-sex-november-2014/
https://medium.com/@brendascouch/rough-sex-what-women-really-want-during-intimacy-f3c2a06064a4
https://www.quora.com/Do-women-like-rough-sex-and-why
https://www.askmen.com/dating/love_tip_100/129_love_tip.html
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33564979/
https://www.psypost.org/2020/04/study-women-initiate-rough-nearly-as-often-as-men-and-it-usually-isnt-that-rough-56006
https://misters.in/en/blog/why-women-want-you-to-be-rough-in-bed-1161-1203/
Posted in America
Comments Off on NYT: As Israel’s Dependence on U.S. Shrinks, So Does U.S. Leverage
Why Is There Sexual Repression?
Sociologist Randall Collins writes:
Social rules are embedded in tacit understandings as to when a rule is to be invoked. Freud would have called this unconscious; Durkheim called it pre-contractual solidarity. There are many persons and many situations where one cannot ask for consent, or even bring up the topic.
By way of generating some sense of the social conditions, ask yourself: how many people can you ask to have sex with you? Think of the variations of how to say it to particular persons: politely, indirectly, blatantly, using slang, using obscenity: “Excuse me ma’am (or sir), would you like to fuck?” What would happen if you said this? In some situations today one would be accused of using inappropriate language, in others, of sexual harassment. In the era before WWII, you could get your face slapped.
I have appealed to your imagination of real-life occasions because in the vast number of situations where someone has a sexual interest in someone else, it does not get expressed at all. David Grazian’s book, On the Make: The Hustle of Urban Nightlife, shows what happens when young adults are out in the scenes where they are most explicitly looking for sex. Although both the boys and the girls* talk about what they are aiming for and what happened, they do this among themselves before they go out and after they come back. When they are on the front lines in the night club, virtually no one ever says anything like, let’s hook up. They are playing a game of pickup, but at a very distant level. Most of the excitement is in the tease and innuendo, and sexual scores are so rare that the boys end up bragging about getting a girl’s phone number, and the girls laugh about giving out fake numbers. Like most ethnographies, Grazian cuts through the ideal and shows the social realities of how the atmosphere of sexual excitement is constructed, like putting on a performance in a theatre.
Why doesn’t this scene, about as blatantly sexual as they come, have more real sex or at least more sexual talk? This means asking about the sociological processes that repress sex. We will come to the list of causes shortly; here they have little to do with the kind of sexual repression which concerned Freud.
Compare the few places where expressing one’s sexual desire face-to-face with its target is actually done. One is in front of fraternity houses, on heightened occasions like party-night afternoons, or at the beginning of term when new student cohorts arrive. There can be a lot of raucous hooting at passing women, commenting both positively and negatively on their sexual desirability. Notice two things: This is sexual expression, but without a serious aim to get consent from any particular woman; in fact, the impersonal and collective nature of the hooting makes this impossible. Secondly, even the frat boys’ tactic of strength-in-numbers-and-anonymity does not necessarily shield them from the negative reaction they would likely get if one of them said the same things to an individual woman. As social movements and administrative organization have mobilized, fraternities hooting at women are sometimes sanctioned or even closed down (as happened for instance at San Diego State University in 2014). The sociological pattern holds: expressing sexual desire is limited even in the most liberated society; it can be gotten away with more if it is ostensibly not really serious, or is carried out at a safe distance. Today, the most blatant sexual talk is telephone sex [Flowers 1998]. Sexual expression also gives rise to counter-movements. The sociological pattern is not sexual expression alone, but sexual conflict.
Inside the fraternity house, the situation is not too dissimilar from Grazian’s description of downtown nightclubs. [Sanday, Fraternity Gang Rape; Armstrong and Hamilton, Paying for the Party] There is a lot of bragging talk about sex within the male-bonded group; but only a small sexual elite actually gets very much action. At parties, disguised by loud music, semi-darkness, and plentiful alcohol, the reality is that most of the frat boys are on the sidelines watching their sexual heroes. So, are they the ones who boldly ask for sex? Even here, the conversations are more tacit and oblique than blatant; the most successful approach is by sheer body language, dancing in high sync, laughing together. The less formal and coherent the talk, the more likely it is to build the mutual mood that may lead to sex. Uninhibited extroversion is favored by the scene, not the rational-legal language of discussion and consent.
The prevailing social pattern when talking person-to-person about possible sex is that explicit sexual desire is never directly expressed, until the situation has evolved non-verbally to the proper point; any violation of this tacit rule gets a negative reaction. The main exception is in commercial sex work, talk between prostitutes and prospective clients (Elizabeth Bernstein, Temporarily Yours). But even here, the initial steps of negotiation are surprisingly round-about. Sex work illustrates a pattern found more generally in social stratification: low-class street prostitutes are most blatant in verbally offering sex; high-class prostitutes or “escorts” play out the girlfriend experience (GFE in advertisements) minimizing explicit negotiations in order to set a non-commercial atmosphere.
The most explicit sexual talk is in scenes dominated by males, not only because they control violence but because they are at the center of the carousing, “where the action is.” This is the pattern in unpoliced lower-class black inner city ghettos, where groups of dominant males– both teenage gang members, and some adult men– fling sexual banter at girls and attractive women, and humiliate those who object. [Jody Miller, Getting Played] This fits the sociological pattern of more blatant sexual talk lower in the class hierarchy. But it isn’t the whole explanation, since upper-middle class fraternities resemble lower-class gangs, except that they have the money for their own club house, and do not need to engage in street crime for income. Whether in tribal societies or enclaves in modern ones, a hyper-sexualized pattern of blatantly exploiting women occurs where the power center is a “men’s house” that is also the ceremonial center of the community.
In the gender-integrated middle and upper classes, much sexual talk is tabooed even when it has nothing to do with consent. Circumstances are rare in which persons can say directly to another: “How big is your penis?” or “You’ve got really great tits.” In the talk regime of liberal late 20th/ early 21st century, such talk would be considered over the top, if not called “politically incorrect,” “sexist,” or actually resulting in formal charges.
Socially constructed age limits
The other part of “consenting adults” is the age limitation. We take this for granted, as all customs generally are. But it is palpably constructed by social regimes, as we can easily see by comparing laws and customs in different historical periods. In this area, instead of a post-Freudian trend of increasing sexual liberation, sexual repressiveness has historically increased.
The strongest contrast is sex in tribal societies. One of the most detailed is Malinowski’s ethnography of the Trobriand Islands north of Australia. The Trobrianders have almost the opposite of the official American position (that adults are sexual and children are sexless, unless adults impose sex upon them). In this tribe, childhood is the time for unrestrained sex; whereas adults are expected to settle down and devote themselves to work. Both girls and boys flaunt their sexual activity; both sexes go off on group sex-seeking expeditions; both show off marks of love-bites and scratches on the skin as proud tokens of sexual passion. This happens almost exclusively among what modern Americans legally define as children.
Among the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, there is a homosexual version (Herdt, Guardians of the Flutes). The normal life-course pattern is for an adolescent boy to become the sexual partner of a young man, the older initiating the younger into sex simultaneously with the mysteries of the warrior men’s house. It is not lifetime homosexuality but a stage of age-graded promotion. The boy is shown the sacred flutes and also taught to suck the man’s penis and swallow the sperm, religiously interpreted as giving manhood. As William Graham Sumner said, the social mores can make anything legitimate.
A similar pattern existed in ancient Greece. Young men of the upper classes, in the long wait for marriage to upper class women (who were snapped up very young by older men), had love affairs with boys of their same social class– preferably adolescents before the beard and pubic hair had grown. These were genuinely passionate love-affairs that would be recognizable today, except that young males rather than females set the ideal of bodily beauty. The ideal eventually became transferred to the female body, once Greek and Roman women became more emancipated. [Dover, Greek Homosexuality; Keuls, Reign of the Phallus]
This is a striking reversal of modern homosexuality, which is legitimate among adults but harshly penalized across age lines. For the ancient Greeks, homosexual relations among adult men was considered ludicrous; and anal sex– the predominant form of modern male homosexual practice [Laumann et al. 1994]– was regarded only as a humiliating punishment.
What can we get out of these comparisons other than that societies change and can decree anything is right and wrong?
Sex between adults and “children”– generally defined by the cutting point of age 18– is now labeled child sexual abuse. It is the most stigmatized of contemporary crimes. The rationalized argument is that the child has no power of consent, and that any adult must automatically be considered as taking advantage of them. This is a legal judgment, not a sociological one.
Where sociological evidence does exist is for the pattern that children who have had sex with adults– victims of child abuse– have many more life problems. [Finkelhor 1986] They have more drug use and alcohol excess; more unstable marriages and sexual partnerships; they are more likely to become victims of spousal abuse and violence; to have more trouble with education and jobs. The data analyses do not always control very well for confounding factors, such as lower social class and broken family structure; but on the whole, one can make out a sociological case why child sexual abuse is a very bad thing in its consequences.
Social shame causes the damage
There is one major problem: what is the causal mechanism? One might assume that a child who has sex with an adult feels traumatized; but this is not always the case. Sometimes the adult uses force, but in many cases the adult is a parent or close relative, often when the opposite-sex spouse is absent, and the child gets an early sense of intimacy and initiation into adult sexual privileges. The mechanism that causes the trauma, most typically, is shame. Shame produced by the reaction of the larger society, shame transmitted to the child by having to keep the sexual relationship secret. Shame and humiliation when the case comes to official notice; even bureaucratic policies to keep such cases secret (as far as the child’s identity is concerned) have the effect of segregating the child in an atmosphere where the secrecy is itself a mark of shame. This is shown in studies of juvenile facilities where children in such cases are segregated; and where a culture of precocious sexuality is further enhanced, since the one thing these kids have over others is more sexual experience, and they share it among their peers.
Social labeling theory has been applied to explaining mental illness, retardation, and numerous other things. The theory has not always held up when controls are applied to the data. But in the case of the life-long effects of being labeled a victim of child abuse, the labeling process is by far the strongest explanation of the debilitating consequences.
As social psychologist/family therapists Thomas Scheff and Suzanne Retzinger have shown, shame is the master motive of social control. Even tiny episodes of shame from broken attunement in a conversation bring hurt reactions; and if the shame is not overtly expressed and resolved, but hidden away (by embarrassment, by shame about being ashamed) it comes out in long-term destructive rage, against self and others. In my own theory of successful and unsuccessful Interaction Rituals [Collins 2004], disattunement and its concomitant shame lead to difficult social relationships; to loss of emotional energy, and instead to a cycle of depression, passiveness, and interactional failure. Via the shame mechanism, it is possible to explain why many sexual relationships between adults and children result in very negative life consequences for the children as they grow up.
Many sexual relationships, not all of them. We know that because of societies like tribal New Guinea and ancient Greece, where adult-child sex was honorable and celebrated, not regarded as shameful at all. In those societies, it had no negative consequences.
The purpose of this discussion is not to make sexual policy; but here is a point where sociological theory suggests what is being done wrong, and what could be done to solve it. The negative consequences of adult/child sex could be eliminated if society stopped treating it as shameful.
Who Can Touch Who When?
The formula “between consenting adults” has similar limitations in explaining the tacit social norms about touching another person.
Consider the range of touches that exist in our society, whether commonplace, restricted, or forbidden:
— shaking hands
— patting on the shoulder (usually clothed)
— kisses of all varieties: air kisses, cheek kisses, gentleman-kissing-lady’s-hand, kissing the Pope’s ring, lip kisses, tongue kisses, tongue-to-genital kisses
Notice, apropos of consenting adults, hardly anyone ever asks, “Can I kiss you?” (although social consent is explicit in the traditional wedding ceremony, with its climax “You may now kiss.”) When persons kiss, and what kind of kiss it is, is a tacit, unspoken part of a particular kind of social relationship. If it is the wrong social relationship, or the wrong kiss, there are repercussions. This is a sociological rule for all forms of touching.
Similarly with hugs. The style has palpably changed in American society, with a big shift in the 1970s towards much more hugging– not necessarily spontaneous, because it has become so strongly expected in particular situations. Take a look at the polite hugs which are now de rigueur in social gatherings of the higher classes– hugs around the shoulders, leaning forward, avoiding full body contact. In the 1940s, an enthusiastic hug consisted in grasping the other person’s arms with both hands, above the elbows– more enthusiasm shown by more body contact, within the limitations of the time. The ritual of sports celebrations (victories; home-runs crossing the plate) has shifted from merely verbal, to hand-shaking, to the now-required full-body pile-on. It is notable that body contact among American men is more extensive the more violent it is; swinging high-fives, forearm smashes, chest bumps, pile-ons are more favored than gentle contact, probably because the violence sends the message that it isn’t sexual.
Historical comparison helps explain the meanings of body contact vary. In traditional societies such as Arabs, it was common for groups of men in public to walk along holding hands or linking arms. Similarly, women in traditional societies linked arms in public. It was an explicit show of group tie-signs. It had nothing sexual about it; it expressed the politics of the situation when kin-groups and other close solidarities were all-important. As modern societies have become more individualized, tie-signs such as hand-holding or linking arms have narrowed in meaning, explicitly confined to sexual ties. It is the same with the decay of old kissing rituals like the French official who kisses the recipient on both cheeks after pinning on a medal.
In our sexually liberated age, many bodily gestures are restricted, because the default setting is to take them as sexual.
Four causal mechanisms that control sex
[1] Sexual property regimes
[2] Sexual markets
[3] Sexual domination and counter-mobilization
[4] Sexual distraction and sexual ugliness
These mechanisms, in one degree or another, have existed in every society. What varies is the strength of the ingredients that go into each mechanism.
Posted in Sex
Comments Off on Why Is There Sexual Repression?
Sexual Repression In 2021 (5-24-21)
00:00 Blokes over 40 should reconsider polo shirts
04:00 Kenneth Brown feels exhausted, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ulz5HGioYE
10:00 Bitcoin’s Troubles Go Far Beyond Elon Musk, https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/bitcoins-troubles-go-far-beyond-elon-musk
17:30 Secession 2.0? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaxShgPONcA
21:00 Was I bullied?
23:00 Sexual repression in 2021, http://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-does-sexual-repression-exist.html
1:40:30 Mersh is skeptical of Mr. Metokur’s cancer diagnosis
1:53:30 Apollonian Germ on Greg Johnson, Richard Spencer, Keith Woods, the Rothschilds, The Scamdemic & More, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arxtmaLOk_0
2:20:20 Stephen Miller on illegal immigrants getting put up in luxury hotels
2:03:40 RICHARD SPENCER & ED DUTTON | The Collapse of World Civilization, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47mA9U9jlik
2:13:40 The KMG Show EP 303 I Have Returned, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7Aecqtg0Bw
2:16:30 When You Buy The Top of Every Investing Trend, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oG58PiZ5U8
2:18:40 Hyperinflation is here… But has it just begun?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CJyFKoTxEs
2:23:35 Tucker Carlson on the origins of Covid
2:38:00 Joel Kotkin: The Rise of Corporate-State Tyranny, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl78OxcY0kc
2:50:00 Bill Gates song
2:56:00 JF Gariepy says no reunion with Andy Warski, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOjTIwydMPM
I don't know how the polo shirt became the norm for casual wear for men over 35. It's so unforgiving. If you're not in shape it just shows off all your fat. The worst pics of Trump was in the polo. He put on a suit and looked different. Norm should be wearing a blazer https://t.co/1B9kwKZeFa
— LindyMan (@PaulSkallas) May 23, 2021
Posted in America
Comments Off on Sexual Repression In 2021 (5-24-21)
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