Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 15, 2017, 03:52:45 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
106216 Posts in 2396 Topics by 1094 Members
Latest Member: Ice Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Second American Civil War
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: Second American Civil War  (Read 9125 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #100 on: September 03, 2017, 11:51:42 AM »

https://amgreatness.com/2017/08/31/2016-election-not-reversible/


The 2016 Election is Not Reversible
By Angelo Codevilla| August 31, 2017



Today, the bipartisan ruling class, which the electorate was trying to shed by supporting anti-establishment candidates of both parties in 2016, feels as if it has dodged the proverbial bullet. The Trump administration has not managed to staff itself—certainly not with anti-establishment people—and may never do so. Because the prospect of that happening brought the ruling class’s several elements together and energized them as never before, today, prospects of more power with fewer limits than ever eclipse the establishment’s fears of November 2016.

But the Left’s celebrations are premature, at best. As I explained a year ago, by 2016 the ruling class’s dysfunctions and the rest of the country’s resentment had pushed America over the threshold of a revolution; one in which the only certainty is the near impossibility of returning to the republican self-government of the previous two centuries. The 2016 election is not reversible, because it was but the first stage of a process that no one can control and the end of which no one can foresee.


Trump’s troubles

The Left’s optimism is not unfounded. Trump, in his Afghanistan speech, told his voters that he is reversing a campaign promise because he was instructed that his, and their, basic instincts on foreign affairs are wrong. Similarly influenced, he is continuing to use unappropriated funds to subsidize insurance companies that practice Obamacare even though a Federal Court held this to be unconstitutional—far from undoing it as he had promised. Nevertheless he complies with rulings by single judges that overturn major political commitments of his. Unforced errors, all.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the Republican majorities in the Senate and House reject responsibility for failing to repeal Obamacare and even for failing to pass ordinary appropriations bills. They take every occasion to distance themselves from Trump, notably imputing to him insufficient disdain for racism and other political taboos. When Corporate America withdrew from the president’s business council, it premised this officious separation on implicit accusations of the same sort. In short, the Republican establishment now joins Hillary Clinton in leveling “deplorable” allegations against Trump and, above all, of his supporters. Nevertheless, Trump agreed to endorse that establishment’s candidate in the Alabama senatorial primary against one of his own supporters. Counterintuitive.


Not incidentally, he well-nigh cleansed his White House staff of people who had supported his election, and put it in the hands of persons who just as easily could have been in a Clinton White House—people who agree with the press that their job is to control Trump. Secretary of State Tillerson’s remark that the President’s words on America’s values are merely his private opinion epitomizes this transfer of effective power.

With the Left in full cry, the Republican majorities in the House and Senate put no legislative obstacles in the way of the “resistance” to the 2016 election. These Republicans, having now effectively demonstrated that the arguments that won them four consecutive election cycles were insincere, can no longer reprise them. Believing that the 2016 elections were an anomaly the effects of which they are containing, that Trump will pass and the “resistance” with him, they move from putting distance between themselves and Trump to defining themselves against him and with “moderate Democrats”  in concert with whom they hope to enjoy their powers.

Trump himself, far from leading public opinion from the bulliest of pulpits, limits himself to “tweets” of 140 characters, which observers from all sides characterize as “plaintive.” In short, the ruling class’s “resistance” met feeble resistance—that is, insofar as it concerns Donald Trump.


Donald Trump is not and never has been the issue. With or without Trump, the nightmare of those who resist the 2016 election was, is, and will remain the voters who have chosen and will continue to choose candidates who they believe are committed to reducing the ruling class’s privileges and pretensions. 

It’s the contempt, stupid!

That is why the “resistance” has increased rather than diminished the 2016 election’s import as a revolutionary event. To ordinary Americans, the winds that now blow downwind from society’s commanding heights make the country seem more alien than ever before. More than ever, academics, judges, the media, corporate executives, and politicians of all kinds, having arrogated moral legitimacy to their own socio-political identities, pour contempt upon the rest of America. Private as well as public life in our time is subject to their escalating insults, their unending new conditions on what one may or may not say, even on what one must say, to hold a job or otherwise to participate in society.

As I  have argued at length elsewhere, the cultural division between privileged, government-connected elites and the rest of the country has turned twenty-first century politics in America into a cold civil war between hostile socio-political identities.

During the 2016 primaries the U.S electorate’s obvious, consistent, attempt to affirm its identity in contrast with those of the ruling class set aside concerns about particular policies. It produced Donald Trump as the Republican candidate because his campaign was all about identifying himself with those Americans who had felt most keenly the abuse coming from above. Socialist Bernie Sanders almost became the Democratic candidate (but for his party machinery’s interference) by showing that he was even more in tune than Clinton with his constituency’s arrogation of moral supremacy over the rest of the country. In sum, the 2016 elections were won and lost on the ground of this new kind of identity politics.

The ruling class and its Democratic Party had been practicing identity politics with increasing intensity for more than a generation. The elections’ outcome convinced them that they needed to engage in it just about exclusively, and in a warlike manner. Possessed of the modern administrative state’s manifold levers of power, they expect to win that war. That is unlikely, if only because its components’ notions of their respective identities’ demands are ever expanding. Hence they preclude imposing any extended peace among themselves, never mind with the rest of America. This impossibility of socio-political peace is the reason why the revolution in which we are living is just getting started.

By contrast, however, the post 2016 Republican Party is perhaps even more wary than ever of embodying the socio-political identities of the people who have been voting Republican. Hence, with the Republican Party disqualifying itself from the battle that is actually taking place, there is no political vehicle that exists by which Americans may challenge the ruling class.

There is much demand for such a vehicle. How may the political marketplace supply it?

What now?

President Donald Trump is the obvious, first-order answer. Anyone possessed of the enormous institutional and political powers of the modern U.S. presidency is better placed to make victims than to be one. Most recently, Barack Obama showed that the practical limit of a “stop me if you can” presidency is the one-third of the Senate needed to block impeachment. Obama decided not to enforce laws on the books and to create new ones by executive order. When courts intervened, he ignored them. Always, he accompanied his “pen and phone” actions with explanations that excited his supporters’ support while casting aspersions on the people they love to hate. For better or worse, Americans who wanted to reverse what Obama had done rejected outright candidates who they felt would be hampered by the Republican Party. And they were less moved by Constitutional scholar Ted Cruz than by Donald Trump, whose demeanor promised that he would do for them what Obama had done to them.

Let us be clear: the 2016 electorate chose Trump and they saw Trump as the vehicle by which to challenge the ruling class. During the first half of 2017, the Republican Party finished discrediting itself as a possible vehicle for that job. Since this is so, were Donald Trump seriously to bid for the presidency in 2020, it would have to be by leading a new party focused on the identities of anti-ruling class Americans. Carrying the Republican label would be an impossible burden.

Were an energetic, unambiguous, unapologetic Trump to affirm the majority of Americans’ political identity, not all Republicans would follow. Nor does he need them all. By bringing new elements into his following and, yes, by dropping some Republicans from it, Trump would effectively build a new party, with intact credibility. The departure of major corporations from his business council—big business is deeply unpopular on Main Street America—is an example of  how to gain by shedding baggage. At any rate, it was never possible that the entire Republican Party would represent America against the ruling class.

Let us be clear: the 2016 electorate chose Trump and they saw Trump as the vehicle by which to challenge the ruling class. During the first half of 2017, the Republican Party finished discrediting itself as a possible vehicle for that job. Since this is so, were Donald Trump seriously to bid for the presidency in 2020, it would have to be by leading a new party focused on the identities of anti-ruling class Americans. Carrying the Republican label would be an impossible burden.
But by the same token, each action taken by anyone who is creating a new movement must speak for itself more loudly and clearly than the words used to explain that action. Democracy does not tolerate pairing big words with small accomplishments. Today, Trump’s role in fulfilling the political marketplace’s demand is up to him even more than it was in 2016. But now as then, America’s open political marketplace invites all. The anti ruling class constituency is bigger than ever. If Trump does not lead it, someone else will.

2020 politics

Regardless of what Trump does or does not do, America’s cold civil war is likely to be waged between three or four sets of constituencies, each with its own identity. Herewith one estimate of how and why each may fare in the elections of 2020.

The ruling class’s set—educators, blacks, never-married women, government employees, corporate executives, etc. will enter the contest with enormous advantages in organization, and with a near monopoly of favorable media attention. But its constituencies seem to be contracting a bit rather than expanding. Disillusionment of some blacks with the rewards received for faithfulness, and of young people with the Democratic Party’s bureaucratization, demonstrate key weaknesses in this coalition, as does its substitution of insult and penalty for attempts to convince those outside of it. Nevertheless, almost surely, the Democratic Party will be the #1 or #2 recipient of popular and electoral votes.

It is impossible to tell at this point to what extent the Democratic party may lose the farthest Left  parts of its left wing. That is because the Party’s extreme Left—violent in word and deed—has been its only area of growth and enthusiasm. But while the Left’s defection would surely push the Party leftward and could harm its prospects, it is difficult to imagine it putting a dent in the party’s rock-solid organization, never mind contending for electoral votes.

The ruling class’s violent “resistance” to the 2016 results has whipped together the coalition that elected Trump in 2016. That coalition, consists of that three-fourths of Republican voters  dissatisfied with the Party’s leadership and who now hate it, anti-establishment independents, and even Democrats turned off by their Party’s anti-nationalism as well as its embrace of abortion and homosexuality. Its growth has been independent of Trump’s political fortunes. Regardless of the name that it may adopt, given competent leadership, it can be forged into the anti-establishment vehicle for which the political marketplace has been clamoring. It has a solid shot at overtaking the Democratic party in popular and electoral votes.

In 2020, the Republican presidential nomination will not be worth having. It is by no means clear why anyone looking for relief and protection from ruling class rule would vote Republican. Judging from Republican leaders in Congress and from The Wall Street Journal, the GOP has only to present itself as the alternative to rule by Democrats and cite some well crafted, subtle differences in policy to reap the bountiful harvests of votes it has received in recent cycles. Besides, the Party is awash in money. In 2016, this line of thought produced $150 million to promote Jeb Bush’s primary presidential candidacy, which yielded a total of three delegates out of almost 2500. In 2020, the Party having proved that life under Republican majorities in both Houses and a Republican president is no less subject to ruling class outrages than it was under Democrats, this line of thinking is likely to yield even less. Hence, the only near-certainty about politics in 2020 is that the Republican Party’s presidential candidate will come in a distant third.

In 2020, the Republican presidential nomination will not be worth having. It is by no means clear why anyone looking for relief and protection from ruling class rule would vote Republican.
If then—a not so big if—the Democratic party failed to secure a majority of electoral votes, the Constitution would turn the election over to the House of Representatives, each state having one vote. Given America’s demographics, the majority of states has a majority of conservative Republican congressmen. Unless these Congressmen were to commit political suicide by associating themselves with the candidate who got the least votes just because of the label Republican, they would identify with the coalition that Trump started in 2016. Their votes would be signatures on the new party’s birth certificate.

For the revolution’s next stage, the number of contenders would be down to two again.

About the Author: Angelo Codevilla
Angelo Codevilla
Angelo M. Codevilla is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace, Hoover Institution Press, 2014
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #101 on: September 04, 2017, 09:40:12 PM »

Very interesting read, but this is not the thread for it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #102 on: September 11, 2017, 07:22:36 AM »

The Hard Right and Hard Left Pose Different Dangers
By affirming benign goals, Antifa and its comrades make intolerance and even violence seductive.
Antifa protesters in Portland, Ore., June 4.
Antifa protesters in Portland, Ore., June 4. Photo: Paul Gordon/Zuma Press
By Alan M. Dershowitz
Sept. 10, 2017 4:01 p.m. ET
69 COMMENTS

The extreme right—neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and other assorted racists and anti-Semites—and the extreme left—anti-American and anti-Israel zealots, intolerant censors, violent anarchists such as Antifa, and other assorted radicals—both pose a danger in the U.S. and abroad.

Which group poses a greater threat? The question resists a quantitative answer, because much may depend on time and place. It may also be in the eye of the beholder: For many on the center left, the greater danger is posed by the hard right, and vice versa. Yet the most important reason for this lack of a definitive quantitative answer is that they pose qualitatively different dangers.

History has set limits on how far to the extremes of the hard right reasonable right-wingers are prepared to go. Following the horrors of the Holocaust and Southern lynchings, no one claiming the mantle of conservative is willing to be associated with Nazi anti-Semitism or the KKK. Neo-Nazi and Klan speakers are not invited to university campuses.

The hard left lacks comparable limits. Despite what Stalin, Mao, the Castros, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez and North Korea’s Kims have done in the name of communism, there are still those on the left—including some university professors and students—who do not shrink from declaring themselves communists, or even Stalinists or Maoists. Their numbers are not high, but the mere fact that it is acceptable on campuses, even if not praiseworthy, to be identified with hard-left mass murderers, but not hard-right mass murderers, is telling.

The ultimate goals of the hard right are different, and far less commendable, than those of the hard left. The hard-right utopia might be a fascist society modeled on the Italy or Germany of the 1930s, or the segregationist post-Reconstruction American South.

The hard-left utopia would be a socialist or communist state-regulated economy aiming for economic and racial equality. The means for achieving these important goals might be similar to those of the hard right. Hitler, Stalin and Mao all killed millions of innocent people in an effort to achieve their goals.

For the vast majority of reasonable people, including centrist conservatives, the hard-right utopia would be a dystopia to be avoided at all costs. The hard-left utopia would be somewhat more acceptable to many on the center left, so long as it was achieved nonviolently.

The danger posed by the extreme left is directly related to its more benign goals, which seduce some people, including university students and faculty. Believing that noble ends justify ignoble means, they are willing to accept the antidemocratic, intolerant and sometimes violent censorship policies and actions of Antifa and its radical cohorts.

For that reason, the most extreme left zealots are welcomed today on many campuses to express their radical views. That is not true of the most extreme neo-Nazi or KKK zealots, such as David Duke and Richard Spencer. Former White House aide Steve Bannon recently told “60 Minutes” that “the neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates and the Klan, who by the way are absolutely awful—there’s no room in American politics for that.” In contrast, prominent American leftists, such as Noam Chomsky and even Bernie Sanders, supported the candidacy of British hard-left extremist Jeremy Corbyn, despite his flirtation with anti-Semitism.

The hard right is dangerous largely for what it has done in the past. For those who believe that past is prologue, the danger persists. It also persists for those who look to Europe for hints of what may be in store for us: Neofascism is on the rise in Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Greece, Lithuania and even France. Some of this rise may be attributable to regional issues, such as the mass migration of Muslims from Syria and other parts of the Middle East. But some may also be a function of growing nationalism and nostalgia for the “glory” days of Europe—or, as evidenced in our last election, of America.

The danger posed by the extreme hard left is more about the future. Leaders of tomorrow are being educated today on campus. The tolerance for censorship and even violence to suppress dissenting voices may be a foretaste of things to come. The growing influence of “intersectionality”—which creates alliances among “oppressed” groups—has led to a strange acceptance by much of the extreme left of the far-from-progressive goals and violent means of radical Islamic terrorist groups that are sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and anti-Western. This combination of hard-left secular views and extreme Islamic theological views is toxic.

We must recognize the different dangers posed by different extremist groups that preach and practice violence, if we are to combat them effectively in the marketplace of ideas, and perhaps more importantly, on the campuses and streets.

Mr. Dershowitz is a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of “Trumped up! How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy” (CreateSpace, 2017).
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #103 on: September 12, 2017, 09:57:48 PM »

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/09/09/antifa-militants-ready-break-bones-invade-homes/

Antifa Militants Ready To Break Bones, Invade Homes
JOHN SEXTON
Posted at 8:31 pm on September 9, 2017

Reveal published a story Tuesday titled “Antifa has a rapid response team that targets alt-right organizers.” The kind of targeting the article describes is not just keeping an eye out for people on the streets, this is more organized and specific behavior that results in a published hit list of right-wing targets. In this case, “hit list” is not a metaphor. This is the list of people Antifa members plan to hit and injure if they encounter them. Reveal reporter Will Carless spoke to one of the “most militant” members of the Bay Area Antifa, a guy called Dominic who sees himself as a “Nazi hunter.” Dominic is ready to take his street battle into his target’s homes if necessary:


One antifa activist, who would give only the name “Dominic,” talked proudly in a series of interviews with Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting about forming this broader alliance of “Nazi hunters” to seek out, reveal and fight these enemies wherever they might show up. Their goal became even more specific after Charlottesville: to prevent more casualties like that of activist Heather Heyer.

“We’ll go to their house, I’ll put it that way. We’ll go to their house,” said Dominic, an imposing, muscular man in his 30s. “I don’t want to hurt anybody, but I want those people to stop it. If I have to put Richard Spencer or Nathan Damigo into the hospital critically, and it would have saved Heather Heyer’s life or the next potential Heather Heyer, I would do it without question.”
Dominic’s targets don’t have to be actual Nazis, white supremacists or extremists. As the story points out, sometimes anyone on the right will do:

At about 3 p.m., Dominic and his crew got word that a handful of people had been spotted by one of their lookouts holding a banner reading, “Love Free Speech, Unafraid of Fake News, Ask Me My Point of View.”…

The handful of conservative protesters at Fisherman’s Wharf soon was surrounded by the black-clad group, who screamed at them, telling them to get out of town.

“They were way more aggressive and intimidating than the protesters, to be honest,” said Mike Gaughan, a pedicab driver who witnessed the confrontation.
In preparing for right-wing rallies scheduled to take place in San Francisco and Berkeley last month, Dominic and the other militants put together an 8-page handout on who might show up and added a one-page “Know Your Nazi” hit list with pictures of nine individuals including Patriot Prayer leader Joey Gibson. Gibson has denounced Nazis and white supremacists several times recently but he is on the list because some actual white supremacists have shown up at his previous events.

You’ve probably seen the video of what happened when Gibson and two members of his group showed up in Berkeley (and if you haven’t read Matt Labash’s story on it, it’s here). If you wondered how so many of the Antifa members recognized him instantly, it’s because his photo was on the hit list:



Gibson escaped the mob by slipping behind a line of police down the street. One of the people he was with, Keith Campbell, wasn’t so lucky. Campbell was hit in the head, collapsed on the ground and was then kicked by Antifa members. Asked about this response, Dominic tells Reveal, “What does he deserve? He deserves potentially stitches or broken bones.” He adds, “He wasn’t gonna get killed that day, we were strategic.”

We could see more of this as soon as tomorrow. Joey Gibson’s Patriot Prayer group is scheduled to hold a rally in Portland and Rose City Antifa is expected to counter-protest.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #104 on: September 15, 2017, 06:12:36 AM »

Often a bombastic over the top source, but posted for the info on the next play my Milo

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/new-american-civil-war-the-battle-of-berkeley-started-yesterday/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #105 on: September 16, 2017, 08:22:28 AM »

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21115/5-things-i-learned-berkeley-last-night-ben-shapiro#
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #106 on: September 20, 2017, 07:52:29 PM »

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7xxmad/the-alt-right-and-antifa-are-waging-a-new-kind-of-internet-warfare

The Alt-Right and Antifa Are Waging a New Kind of Internet Warfare
ByJACOB SIEGELillustrated byLIA KANTROWITZ
Aug 30 2017, 8:25am

Intelligence and surveillance powers that once belonged only to militaries and state spooks are now available to anyone with a high-speed internet connection.

Live long enough and you may hear future historians recall the war between 4chan and an art collective called LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner.

They'll tell the story of how anonymous, interconnected imageboard users gathered clues from public video footage, like passing aircraft and the position of stars, to geolocate the roving, anti-Trump art project He Will Not Divide Us, put on by actor Shia LaBeouf and his collaborators. Records will show that the people on the group's trail—pro-Trump activists, impish saboteurs, and budding neo-Nazis—didn't need high-end spy gear. Instead, they found their mark by collecting and processing public information through decentralized and supposedly leaderless networks. It might one day look, in retrospect, like a form of social automation: continuously updating intelligence assessments converted into real-world effect by volunteer foot "soldiers" acting without orders.


Or maybe the saga will be remembered as a trial run of sorts, when tactics later used in domestic guerilla warfare first appeared as sinister pranks. Whatever happens next, the genie is out of the bottle, and intelligence and surveillance capabilities that once belonged only to militaries and state spooks are now available to anyone with a high-speed internet connection.

Military theorist and futurist John Robb, who wrote the influential 2008 book Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization, developed the concept of "open-source insurgency" to describe emerging forms of conflict. You can see a version of it at work in the current season of political upheaval and clashes in American cities. Of course, it's violence in the streets that captures most of the attention, especially after a car plowed into a crowd amid the neo-Nazi spectacle in Charlottesville, killing counter-protester Heather Heyer and injuring many more. But in the background, much of the fighting is being done online. Memes, trolls, bans, doxes, sock puppets, and targeted disruption campaigns like the one used against LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner are being deployed in a cycle of attacks and counterattacks that, much like traditional military intelligence and information operations, set conditions for the next round of physical confrontation.

The foundation of open-source insurgency is what Robb calls "superempowerment": "an increase in the ability of individuals and small groups to accomplish tasks/work through the combination of rapid improvements in technological tools and access to global networks." That increase, Robb argues, "has enabled small groups to radically increase their productivity in conflict."


It's a concept that helps make sense of the seemingly outsized cultural clout of the alt-right, a movement built on beliefs that fail to attract more than fringe support in national surveys.

"History doesn't repeat, it rhymes," Robb said in an interview, echoing an adage attributed to Mark Twain.


What distinguishes the current political conflict from past episodes of fascists, communists, and anarchists clashing in the streets of Western cities, according to Robb, "is the whole social networking thing."

"They exercise power in this new environment through online disruption," he added. "You keep everything chaotic, you don't know what's up and down, who to trust and who not to trust, and what news is right or wrong. In that environment, they can exercise some level of control."

There are other names like "hybrid warfare" and "fourth-generation warfare" to describe the evolving nature of political and military conflict. The idea is that war has moved beyond the battlefield into an all-encompassing struggle in economics, politics, and culture, along with old-school physical confrontation. In this new kind of warfare, where the allegiance of civilian populations is crucial, control over narrative and messaging is often more important than killing the enemy or holding a particular piece of ground.

The fact that much of this applies to what's going on in America now doesn't mean a civil war has already begun. But it suggests that after a long period of relative quiet in the West, when war and peace appeared to be distant, unbridgeable states, they have begun bleeding back into each other.


A signature tactic in the new conflict, honed on sites like 4chan and 8chan, is forensic analysis of digital imagery and geospatial data—fields specialized enough to have their own acronyms, IMINT and GEOINT, in military jargon. Sometimes this work is carried out by distributed networks without any clear leaders or permanent organization. But there are more formalized approaches as well. The Atlantic Council–affiliated Bellingcat mixes investigative journalism with open-source forensic analysis to do things like geolocate ISIS training camps. Groups on 4Chan and Anonymous have also repeatedly waded into foreign wars, notably in Ukraine and Syria, where they have typically taken different sides, with 4chan showing a strong pro-Assad and pro-Russia bias.

The tactics involved aren't exactly neutral—they favor actors skilled at processing and manipulating high volumes of information—but they are promiscuous. What works against an anti-Trump art installation can be used by ISIS, antifa, or the alt-right, or turned against any of these groups. Similar systems can even be implemented to coordinate volunteers in highly effective disaster relief efforts.

Probably the most famous recent example of this method in action involves Eric Clanton, the former college professor charged with assaulting three people with a metal bike-lock during a Berkeley free speech rally in April. Clanton appears to have been first identified as the alleged assailant on 4Chan, despite his face being completely covered in the only footage of the attacks. 4Chan users identified him by isolating unique non-facial visual characteristics and then going frame by frame through imagery from the event, hunting for matches.


This method has spread as political violence picked up. A Twitter account associated with 4Chan's alt-right-infested/pol/board is now promoting the process in detail, in an apparent attempt to attract new volunteers to scale the tactic up:


In Charlottesville, antifa protesters used many of the same techniques to identify and publicize information about alt-right attendees. The process also led to misidentifications and accusations against innocent people, something right-wing internet activists have repeatedly done in the past. The rush to judgement and lack of restraint follows a different pattern set in 2013, when a crowdsourced investigation conducted in part on Reddit falsely accused innocent people of involvement in the Boston Marathon bombing—a mistake also made on the front page by the semi-pros of the New York Post.

After the violence had abated in Virginia this month, a twitter account called @yesyoureracist posted information about people ostensibly identified at the "Unite the Right" rally, eventually gathering 408,000 followers and setting up a Patreon to support its efforts. In turn, 8Chan has reportedly begun targeting Logan Smith, who runs the account, allegedly threatening his family.

Peter W. Singer is a strategist and military theorist with the Brookings Institution and New America Foundation who writes about the future of warfare. He has examined this kind of conflict for years, and offered some perspective on outing people at protests, doxes, and other methods of 21st-century combat. "Octavian did it to Mark Antony," Singer said, referencing a contest for power in Rome's Second Triumvirate that included the public release of a stolen will.


In the current landscape, Singer sees plenty of continuity with classic intelligence techniques, along with some clever innovations.

"There's sock puppeting, someone trying to appear as if they're someone else," Singer told me. "And then a riff on that is trying to appear as if you're a supporter but with the goal of trying to undermine that group, doing something embarrassing or provocative and steering them toward a bad end. That was a classic Cold War move. You see this now with groups registering as if they're all part of the violent left."

There has been a recent surge of fake antifa social media accounts and forgeries of supposed antifa documents, promoted by major right-wing figures like Rush Limbaugh. Many of these accounts operate between parody and partisan sabotage operations. They take actual positions held by antifa's anarchist wing, like the embrace of political violence and opposition to liberal ideals of free expression, and exaggerate these already divisive qualities to make the group appear even more radical and threatening. Some fake antifa accounts seem designed to sow suspicion among prospective supporters. But many have the cartoonish quality of early anti-communist propaganda—too implausible to sway anyone on the fence, but great for riling up the home team against the bad guys.


In response, antifa-affiliated outlets have doxxed people behind the fake sites, releasing names and other personal details.

We seem to be entering a new phase of bottom-up cyberwar. Robb originally described open-source insurgency as "a large collection of small... superempowered groups [working] together to take on much larger foes (usually hierarchies)." What's going on these days looks even messier than that. Instead of smaller sub-state groups forming strategic alliances to fight the government or private power brokers, affinity groups organized around ideology and ethnic identity are battling one another.


Old intelligence practices and spy vs. spy tools are evolving and being adapted. There are dossiers and black lists, agents and double agents, "good trolls" spying on Trump supporters and fake antifa accounts, disinformation and counter-intelligence campaigns carried out on message boards and chat rooms like Discord and sometimes in full view on social media. Practices have clearly evolved in these new digital network, but old problems remain. Infiltration is perhaps the most obvious: In a world of spies, how do you know who to trust?

More than anything else, it was the election of Donald Trump that turned information-warfare into a familiar concept among average Americans. Reports of Russian "troll farms" and "meme armies" drove interest in the subject, though it's not yet clear what consequences all that new attention will bring.

In Singer's estimation, the most important question now is how these widely available tools will actually be used.

"What are the goals here? Is it to mobilize? Is it to intimidate? Is it to inspire violence?" he asked. "Breaking that down is really important, and that's the challenge private companies are now dealing with, because they're being asked both by governments and by their customers—the public—to do more to police the spaces to make what are at the end of the day political decisions."

Looming in the background behind all of this is the disruption of centralized state power. Even as the US government remains an 800-pound hegemon, it has faltered at enforcing order in digital spaces and arbitrating disputes that arise over its use. That doesn't mean, however, that the internet is ungoverned. Into the vacuum rise new, undemocratic power verticals, centered on the tech titans in Silicon Valley.


The recent case of network and security company Cloudflare booting a prominent neo-Nazi site in the wake of Charlottesville illustrated the point. (And, as Cloudflare's CEO himself acknowledged, it showed the dangers in leaving these decisions up to the prerogatives of private businesses.)

This new civil conflict in America is still in its early stages, and far from an existential crisis. But what we are witnessing is an incipient, low-level version of the sort of violent multipolar insurgency that has torn apart other countries.

"What's frustrating," Singer said, "is seeing the sort of people and tactics you were used to seeing in war being used in the United States."

"These groups," he added, "the tactics that they use, the types of battles that they fight are not an anomaly, they're the new normal. Not just in the United States but across the world."

You've probably heard Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz's famous adage, "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Clearly he was on to something. But Andrew Breitbart, svengali of the new right-wing media that spawned former White House adviser Steve Bannon, also had a point in his own oft-repeated line, "Politics is downstream from culture." The lines between culture, news, politics, war, and entertainment have blurred, and are now streaming in every direction through the internet's cracked screen.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #107 on: September 25, 2017, 12:25:09 PM »



http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/09/23/surrounding-protesters-start-smashing-up-your-car-you-fear-for-your-life-what-can-you-legally-do/?utm_content=bufferce319&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #108 on: September 29, 2017, 10:33:38 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&v=RmNz2jGzsDA

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #109 on: September 30, 2017, 12:08:05 AM »

https://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/the-lefts-answer-to-emboldened-white-supremacists-a-militia-of-their-own/Content?oid=7441640
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 764


« Reply #110 on: October 02, 2017, 11:38:53 AM »

I'm putting this here, even though it could really go in several categories. Victims were mostly conservatives, his girlfriend is an environmentalist and her "husband," staunchly "anti-Trump."

http://heavy.com/news/2017/10/stephen-paddock-politics-political-views-beliefs-opinions-trump-stances-democrat-republican-las-vegas-shooting/
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #111 on: October 02, 2017, 04:14:35 PM »

I'm putting this here, even though it could really go in several categories. Victims were mostly conservatives, his girlfriend is an environmentalist and her "husband," staunchly "anti-Trump."

http://heavy.com/news/2017/10/stephen-paddock-politics-political-views-beliefs-opinions-trump-stances-democrat-republican-las-vegas-shooting/

I was thinking the same thing.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7690


« Reply #112 on: October 02, 2017, 07:18:10 PM »

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/10/01/now-wall-street-threatens-nfls-act/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #113 on: October 03, 2017, 09:56:32 AM »

https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2017/10/03/las-vegas-shooter-target-country-music-festival/

Why Did the Las Vegas Shooter Target a Country Music Festival?
 BY HELEN SMITH OCTOBER 3, 2017


We have heard all kinds of stories about the Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock; he was a gambler, a multimillionaire, he liked poker. The list goes on and it's hard to make sense out of what would lead a person to kill so many people. But as Brent Turvey so wisely states: "In the rush to examine a criminal’s behavior, it is not difficult to become distracted by the dangling carrot of that criminal’s potential characteristics and forget about the value of understanding his victims.”

Why did Paddock choose this particular venue to kill or did he alone choose it? Others have speculated that he had help or that he was given orders by someone else. Even Isis has taken credit for the killings. What is going on?

It's hard to say but one thing is probably true: Paddock didn't choose this group randomly. There must have been something about these people or this group that he specifically targeted. Turning to other psychologists who study mass murder, here is what Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, PhD says about the mind of these killers:

Too many people are at a loss to understand such killings. They can’t comprehend the deep pitted hatred that fills the black hearts of these multiple murderers. A shooting or mass event shocks the public which doesn’t spend its time dreaming of murder. However these killers do just that. Every waking moment is focused on their deviant desires. By rote, they practice over and over in their minds how they will destroy as much life as possible. They live and breathe an inevitable revenge. Fueled by continuous anger, they prepare for their destiny. That is how they see it. Every mass killer I interviewed said they always knew they would kill. In a way it is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Whatever method they choose to execute their plan, they practice ad nauseum. They go to the location they want to attack. Once there, they watch. They want to memorize the patterns of the people at the location. They want to see who is there and where they go. What is normal for this area? Yes, killers profile too. They need those patterns so they can predict the behavior of their targets. When they can anticipate how a victim will react, they can cut off escape routes.

Weapons are obtained, and very often, they tell someone of their goal. Though they are deadly serious, the threat is blown off. People have a hard time believing that this person could do such a thing. Or, the person is too frightened to say a word. Thus, the behavior and words do not get reported. And the plan continues.

Maybe he told someone, maybe not. But my main point here is that if law enforcement looks into his choice of victims, they may have a better chance at finding a motive.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9277


« Reply #114 on: October 03, 2017, 10:24:17 AM »

This makes sense in the absence of any other information, you have to wonder what led to this choice of victims. 

I would add that a motive of any suicidal mass murderer is go out in huge burst of fame and glory.  For the lesson of the next would-be mass murderers, I wish we could de-personalize him with the least amount of public attention possible.  Just 'Loser' or 'screwed up assh*le', not the greatest mass shooter of all time.

Also, his death needs to left out of the dead victim count.  He isn't a victim here.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #115 on: October 03, 2017, 11:04:17 AM »

This makes sense in the absence of any other information, you have to wonder what led to this choice of victims. 

I would add that a motive of any suicidal mass murderer is go out in huge burst of fame and glory.  For the lesson of the next would-be mass murderers, I wish we could de-personalize him with the least amount of public attention possible.  Just 'Loser' or 'screwed up assh*le', not the greatest mass shooter of all time.

Also, his death needs to left out of the dead victim count.  He isn't a victim here.

Vegas is always full of similar activities that present similar opportunities. This was premeditated and very deliberate in target selection. This wasn't just a matter of randomly picking a date. The shooter is alleged to have participated in an anti-Trump rally, although that's not confirmed.

Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 764


« Reply #116 on: October 03, 2017, 07:28:50 PM »

I'm putting this here, even though it could really go in several categories. Victims were mostly conservatives, his girlfriend is an environmentalist and her "husband," staunchly "anti-Trump."

http://heavy.com/news/2017/10/stephen-paddock-politics-political-views-beliefs-opinions-trump-stances-democrat-republican-las-vegas-shooting/

I was thinking the same thing.


There are never any "coincidences."

This makes sense in the absence of any other information, you have to wonder what led to this choice of victims.  

I would add that a motive of any suicidal mass murderer is go out in huge burst of fame and glory.  For the lesson of the next would-be mass murderers, I wish we could de-personalize him with the least amount of public attention possible.  Just 'Loser' or 'screwed up assh*le', not the greatest mass shooter of all time.

Also, his death needs to left out of the dead victim count.  He isn't a victim here.

Sometimes it isn't about the fame and glory.

Sometimes it's just about getting even... what "even" might mean.

Sometimes people kill, and no one ever knows.

I do believe as GM's article stated, that people usually do tell someone, but not always.

I also think that the media is purposely underplaying the victims, because they know it will make their leftist selves look badly, and there's just no way to win that for the Left.



A few things strike me as curious.

1.) What were his girlfriend's travel patterns prior to the shooting, and with whom and in what region of the Philippines is she staying with and where?

2.) Her husband is devoutly anti-Trump, and with saying that, why isn't she divorced, and how friendly are the shooter and her husband, being that the shooter and she lived together.

3.) An accountant having machining skills or knowing the people necessary to make/procure automatic weapons... some people say that he was bumpfiring it, but I don't think he was. I think they were auto, regardless, the people with the weapons will know.... but where did he get them, if they were auto, as he was not an avid weapons enthusiast according to his brother.

4.) Where was he educated and what were his parents like?

5.) His brother seems a bit of a liberal to me.


Lastly, he didn't choose his victims at random. Not a chance in hell. He had been there four days, bringing the weapons in, could have picked any other event, but purposely chose the country music venue.

6.) What was the venue for the preceding four days at the place where the country concert was held?

Just random questions I have.

EDIT: Evidently it was a bump stock device as noted here.


« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 07:34:03 PM by DDF » Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7690


« Reply #117 on: October 03, 2017, 08:07:23 PM »

just maybe those pricks Jason Aldean and Big and Rich stole songs from him too.

though why kill fans .   
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #118 on: October 03, 2017, 10:56:26 PM »

Gents-- there is no reason yet to believe that this is about Second American Civil War.  Discussion belong here https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2403.0

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #119 on: October 07, 2017, 12:29:26 PM »

As is his natural right:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/06/angry-gay-owner-unleashes-on-christians-drinking-coffee-in-his-shop-video/?utm_campaign=thedcmainpage&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7690


« Reply #120 on: October 07, 2017, 01:13:31 PM »

"Too bad the service sucked"

 cheesy
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #121 on: October 07, 2017, 05:25:41 PM »


Except Christians still must bake him a wedding cake, under the force of law. I guess some animals are more equal than others.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #122 on: October 09, 2017, 06:10:29 PM »

Christopher Columbus, Great American
Attacks on the explorer are aimed at Western civilization.
Oct. 8, 2017 2:36 p.m. ET


Christopher Columbus was an American-style entrepreneur. He conceived his project alone, suffering in poverty for nearly a decade while raising the money to sail west in search of a backdoor route to the Indies of the East. Most of us can’t begin to grasp the scope of Columbus’s insatiable curiosity, intellectual drive and accomplishments of navigation. Most of us couldn’t find the hamper without a GPS.

Leaving dry land in August 1492 Columbus depended entirely on his brilliant mind, experience and research to guide him. It was common knowledge no one had ventured into that vast expanse of water—lately called the Atlantic—and lived to tell the tale.

Columbus believed he could do it. He read Ptolemy and Marco Polo. His copy of Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly’s “Imago Mundi” contained 898 margin notes in Columbus’s own hand.

Europeans had been accustomed to traveling over land to China, Japan and India to trade for goods. After the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims of the expanding Ottoman Empire in 1453, those ventures became dangerous. The sea became the salvation of European trade.

After three months at sea Columbus disembarked in a place no European knew existed. He believed he had reached the Indies, when in fact he was in the Caribbean. He never set foot on the North American continent. It was a monumental achievement, just not the one he was hoping for.

Today when everything is instantly known—or we think it is—it is impossible to understand how 15th-century European attitudes shaped Columbus. He hoped the profits from his voyage could finance the liberation of the Holy Land from Muslim domination. He also hoped to spread the word of God.

It’s intellectually dicey to judge those who lived hundreds of years ago according to modern norms. Doctors who routinely infected women during childbirth out of ignorance of the germ theory of disease are not reviled today. But European explorers who were similarly ignorant about how diseases are spread are routinely abused for the illnesses that befell inhabitants of the New World from lack of natural immunity.

The Columbian exchange benefited Old World and New by spreading knowledge of science, agriculture and nutrition. Without Columbus, the Renaissance may not have succeeded. Without his discoveries, Italians wouldn’t have marinara sauce, the Irish wouldn’t have mashed potatoes, and the Swiss wouldn’t have chocolate. Because America and its freedoms exist, children no longer contract polio and many other diseases. America saved the world from totalitarianism twice in the last century.

Today Columbus’s reputation is under siege. But those seeking to delegitimize the Genoan explorer’s legacy may actually have a larger target in mind. Statues of Columbus and tributes to his achievements are in many ways proxies for the Western tradition of freedom, liberty and the rule of law. America had better protect Columbus and win this war. There is no one else to save the world next time around.

Ms. DeCarlo formerly covered culture, travel and entertainment for the Chicago Tribune and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #123 on: October 10, 2017, 11:37:17 PM »

http://www.speroforum.com/a/BSDCGSXCTF45/81862-ProTrump-restaurant-faces-death-threats?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=OXVKINDFUR28&utm_content=BSDCGSXCTF45&utm_source=news&utm_term=ProTrump+restaurant+faces+death+threats#.Wd2fknrcCeQ
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #124 on: October 11, 2017, 07:26:21 PM »

https://forwardobserver.com/2017/10/some-thoughts-on-how-we-might-get-to-a-second-civil-war/

Some thoughts on how we might get to a Second Civil War
 
In a blog post today over at Foreign Policy, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel supposes how the U.S. could get to a Second Civil War. Here are some excerpts, followed by my thoughts. (Before I get to my thoughts on the content, let’s reflect on the context. Here’s a retired Army LTC who estimates that there’s now a 40% chance of civil war/domestic conflict. While the title of his ramblings doesn’t exactly fit the content of the article, and the tone of the article gives us insight into his political leanings; what he’s describing is a strategy to push a civil war.)

If we have a second Civil War, trying to understand what is happening will feel more like Ukraine in 2014 than Virginia in 1861.

Generally agree. The only similarities between the War of Northern Aggression and the next domestic conflict would be along lines of demographics and traditional culture, which now expand westward to the Mountain West/American Redoubt. What’s unique about Ukraine is that it’s fundamentally a conflict of ethnicity backed by state powers, albeit with great geopolitical implications. I think that’s a fair way to describe the next domestic conflict, as well.

So, if you are a New Right strategist today — call them the Great Disruptors — the question is, how do you confront those inevitabilities?

First, you continue at the low level, with some really advanced, effective gerrymandering… You continue to enflame working class whites, who have been ignored by the Democrats for decades. You also try to limit immigration and free trade as much as possible.

By “New Right” I’ll assume that the author is using the term to describe the anti-establishment Right, and used in a similar fashion as “New Left”. Shortly before this quote, the author described the demographic changes in America as “irreversible,” which he says drives this conflict. I generally agree with that. And I agree with his next statements, although with one caveat: effective gerrymandering would actually prevent a civil war pursued by the right wing. The chief grievance is that America’s demographics have largely benefited the Left, and so gerrymandering is one way to restore appropriate representation. The argument is really that America’s heritage is being taken from its rightful heirs, especially when “heirs” has been redefined to include and prioritize non-citizens.

The author, though, betrays his political ideology. He would likely never have written that Obama “enflamed working class blacks” to get elected, yet he levels that accusation against the political Right. And while both would be true, the author implies that one is wrong. As much as political pundits have claimed that Trump’s election was a rejection of identity politics, the opposite is true. The election of Donald Trump was about the embrace of identity politics.

So what’s the next step? You up the ante. You make it holy war. You persuade your base that there is no other way but violence. I believe many, perhaps most, of the members of Trump’s base will sign up for that.

This is a real stretch for me to believe, especially because the exact opposite is now happening. The political Right are the ones complaining about political violence and, until a couple weeks ago, political violence was mulled over as a reasonable response to Trumpian “fascism”. Indeed, some on the Left have yet to condemn left wing political violence. As for Trump’s base adopting violence, the same would be said of any other social base when extinction is on the horizon. The author nearly gloats that changing demographics are changing the political landscape — a demographic shift largely pushed by the Left and that largely benefits the Left. This sounds like the old quote about war and politics, but rearranged to say “Politics is war by other means.” This is a political war, it’s a political conflict that’s being waged, and we’re probably approaching a breaking point. The extent to which Trump’s base, or Clinton’s base, or Bernie’s base, or anyone else’s base, adopts violence has more to do with severely limited options and the belief that success is possible through violence, than with a predilection alone towards violence. Trump’s base is not the one promoting political violence, but they are the best equipped to carry it out. And that’s probably what scares the Left so greatly.

Many people in the South and heartland in general often think of themselves as patriotic, loyal Americans, more so than “liberals,” “Yankees,” “elites” and people from the North and urban areas… Southerners nowadays, including Texans, often see themselves as the “realer Americans,” the people who really stand up for the country, who have a better feel for what it stands for.

How do you translate those feelings into tactics? Well, first, you don’t secede. Rather, you set the stage for yourself to be the big winner, the good guy. You make yourself “America” and make the “other guys” the troublemakers and secessionists. All you really are doing, you insist, is trying to make this country great again. Sound familiar?

If I were a truly Machiavellian New Right strategist, I’d focus my fire on the state of California. Make it The Other. Attack it relentlessly. Threaten its culture and power. Cut off water that flows into it from outside the state, essential to its people and agriculture.

Who does this guy think is in charge at the White House? Anyone who would promote these kinds of “attacks” on California? Until this point, the author was arguing a realistic cause and realistic response, but this is beyond the pale of sanity. The current White House, still filled with Obama staffers and globalists, would never allow this to happen. This just not a realistic scenario.

The Disruptors would accept violence as part of the equation. I don’t foresee set-piece battles between great armies, but I think they understand the strategy would involve persistent conflict that kills hundreds or even thousands on the way to achieving its aims. If they can get away with it with minimal bloodshed, great; if not, “so be it.”

The author accuses in advance the Trump base of accepting violence, however, it’s been the exact opposite for the past year. It’s been the Left pushing violence in response to political positions. It’s been the Left advocating violence as a last ditch effort to avoid what they perceive as a fascist state. It’s been the Left actually in pursuit of a fascist state.

In March, my totally unscientific hunch was a second civil war had less than a 20% chance of happening. Now I’m guessing it’s closer to 40%… If anything, I expect it to worsen.

[F]or the New Right, it is the only alternative to political extinction. Soon, they will have no choice but to be bold, drastic and ruthless. We’d be foolish not to expect something real and violent as a result. [source]

I don’t disagree with the first point; namely that there’s a growing likelihood of domestic conflict. On a long enough time horizon, this likelihood approaches 100%. But there’s a lot of time between now and then. I still believe that at the end of this decade and into the early 2020s is when we start seeing very real manifestations of domestic conflict. As for the author’s charge of “political extinction,” it’s unfounded. Conservatives, the New Right, the Alt-Right, are simply not facing extinction.

Conservatism and traditionalism will continue regionally — in the majority of this country, by the way — and that’s where the real risk of domestic conflict is encountered: the small blue dots in seas of red. My belief is that Balkanization will be the ultimate effect of a domestic conflict, but “political extinction” is just not a possibility. That’s just wishful thinking on the part of the author’s.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 12:10:48 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
rickn
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 64


« Reply #125 on: October 12, 2017, 08:14:48 AM »

Story turned out to be false.

Please ignore.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 03:21:24 PM by rickn » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #126 on: October 12, 2017, 09:24:33 AM »

cnn.com and other news sites are not reporting this.



The security guard at the Mandalay Bay hotel has been arrested as an accomplice to the shooting.  Jesus Compos was not registered as a licensed security guard in NV.  Security camera footage now shows him helping Paddock smuggle in weapons.  FBI now theorizes that this person shot out of one of the windows in the suite and then killed Paddock, shot himself, and invented the story of being through the door by Paddock in an effort to escape.

http://cnn-internationaledition.com/2017/10/11/breaking-news-police-arrest-mandalay-security-guard-jesus-compos-as-second-shooter-in-las-vegas-massacre/

(CNN) Breaking News – Mandalay Bay security guard Jesus Compos has been arrested accused of being an accomplice and second shooter in the Las Vegas massacre that claimed the lives of 59 people and injured more than 500.

Jesus Campos had originally been praised for his apparent heroics on October 1st, as he supposedly rushed to Paddock’s suite, was shot in the upper thigh through the door, and continued to help get people to safety despite his wounds. However, FBI officials involved in the investigation now believe he was an accomplice of Paddock’s, and was involved in the initial shooting as a second gunman from the other broken window in Paddock’s 32nd-floor room.

According to a senior FBI official, authorities became suspicions by the extreme amount of gunpowder residue found on Campos’ hands and inconsistencies in his timeline of events. “We believe he killed Paddock, shot holes through the door and his own arm to produce physical evidence for his cover story, then went and lay next to the elevator,” the FBI official told CNN.

An anonymous source working on the investigation told CNN that authorities are now in possession of security footage showing Campos smuggling the firearms used in the massacre in through a Mandalay Bay loading dock in the days leading up to the event.

With the arrest of Compos Police now hope to get a greater understanding of the motivations behind the attack.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #127 on: October 20, 2017, 02:02:06 PM »

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/brownshirts-close-down-uc-santa-cruz-republican-meeting/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #128 on: October 21, 2017, 11:58:28 AM »

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/20/antifa-fight-club-teaching-far-left-punch-shoot/
« Last Edit: October 21, 2017, 01:46:45 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #129 on: October 21, 2017, 03:03:00 PM »

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9991

Socialist group calls for 'extermination' of capitalists

Anthony Gockowski
Investigative Reporter
@AGockowski

on Oct 19, 2017 at 12:26 PM EDT
The Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) chapter at Iowa State University has repeatedly posted threatening tweets about conservatives, but the school maintains that the comments are a form of free speech.
In one tweet, the group said that "the only dope worth shooting" is Donald Trump, and more recently it posted a message calling for the hanging and extermination of "capitalists."

A socialist student group at Iowa State University has repeatedly made threatening comments about conservatives on social media, but the school says the comments are protected speech.

In one recent tweet, the school’s Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) chapter called for the hanging and extermination of all “capitalists.”

"If this was a conservative group, all hell would break loose. It wouldn’t be allowed."   

[RELATED: UGA socialist group disbands amid outrage over anti-GOP tweet]

“The left has done a good job radicalizing juggalos, weebs, furries, but I will not rest until ‘hXc’ stands for hang+Xterminate capitalists,” the group wrote in an October 4 tweet that has since been deleted.

After students brought the tweet to attention of the university, it replied via twitter by stating “this falls under free speech” and then offering available “resources” to student if they “feel threatened or harassed.”



Nor is this the first time that YDSA has posted threatening tweets, such as a September 30 tweet in which the club endorsed “shooting” President Trump.

“COMRADES: stay away from needle drugs! The only dope worth shooting is in the oval office rn [right now],” the group tweeted, though it subsequently deleted that post, as well.



Notably, YDSA is an officially registered student organization at the university, making it one that is “consistent with the mission and culture of the university,” according to the expectations for registered student groups.

While the university did not respond to Campus Reform’s request for comment, one student asserted that YDSA has a long-established pattern of making vitriolic remarks about conservatives.

[RELATED: Prof suggests Texans deserve hurricane for supporting Trump]

“Overall, the club has had many hateful tweets against capitalism and capitalists, with the occasional directly-threatening tweet as shown above,” student Michael Fredrickson told Campus Reform.

“If this was a conservative group, all hell would break loose. It wouldn’t be allowed. Making them delete tweets isn’t going to do anything,” a recent graduate of the university commented on Twitter. “Why isn’t the school doing something? This sounds like a threat to students on campus and in the Ames area. How is this allowed?”

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @AGockowski
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #130 on: October 23, 2017, 07:07:59 PM »

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/372137.php

October 23, 2017
Antifa, Which Routinely Attacks Citizens Without Provocation in "Self Defense," Now Pushing Gun Ownership and Shooting Practice, Also for "Self-Defense"
The leftist media always freaks out about right-wing militias and suvivalists and dangerous gun-crazy anti-government radicals.

Think they'll freak out about a left-wing terrorist group with a long and bloody history of assaults and vandalism arming up, explicitly for "revolution"?

Or do you suppose they'll be a bit more sympathetic? Perhaps we'll even see some positive pieces about leftwingers "getting in touch" with America's gun culture.

Well, you don't have to wait for that -- the Buzzfeed piece Sexton links and critiques has "bought into" Antifa's line about arming up for "self-defense." Obviously.

The idea that these are “"elf-defens'” courses is really a bit of Antifa salesmanship which the author of the piece seems to have bought into. As the article makes clear, the members of the Haymaker Collective are watching videos of protests and learning both individual and group fighting techniques. In other words, the group is preparing people to participate in street battles. As we've all seen, Antifa is not averse to throwing the first punch in those confrontations. But it's not just martial arts, Antifa members are also training with firearms...
And, as could be predicted, Buzzfeed, which usually loses its shit over guns, seems suddenly receptive to the self-defense rationale for gun ownership.

Incidentally, given that the left is now claiming a right to disrupt quiet College Republican meetings in school libraries because, they say, the very existence of college Republicans is a disruption to other people's lives, one should understand "self-defense" to be a rather broad concept to the left.

And a Columbia Prof just helped shut down a speaker who was only speaking on campus via Skype, claiming the very act of him speaking constituted "an act of violence."

Your very existence is a "threat" to them, an "act of violence," to which they feel justified in using force to eradicate.

PS: Via @PoliticalShort, algebra and geometry are just tools of White Oppression.

Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege
Toni Airaksinen
New York Campus Correspondent
@Toni_Airaksinen
Today at 8:20 AM EDT

Gutierrez worries that algebra and geometry perpetuate privilege because "emphasizing terms like Pythagorean theorem and pi" give the impression that math "was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans."

She also worries that evaluations of math skills can perpetuate discrimination against minorities, especially if they do worse than their white counterparts.

Coming soon: An antifa thug murders someone, and the motive... is math.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7690


« Reply #131 on: October 24, 2017, 08:48:35 PM »

"  This is classic, well-meaning liberalism: Bring people together, explore common concerns, and emerge with a (liberal) consensus. People don’t like division, the thinking goes. They want unity. "

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453057/polarization-america-unity-both-sides
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #132 on: October 30, 2017, 10:41:01 AM »

http://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/2017/10/well-there-goes-that-clever-plan.html

Presented without comment.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 11:13:34 AM by G M » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #133 on: October 30, 2017, 11:43:32 PM »

Look, I get the emotional temptation to write something like this, but  , , ,
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #134 on: October 31, 2017, 12:33:14 AM »

https://clarionproject.org/fbi-bombshell-far-left-u-s-radicals-colluding-isis/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #135 on: November 15, 2017, 01:08:39 PM »

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/372534.php

November 15, 2017
Another Lawless Judge: Federal Government Cannot Withhold Federal Grants from Cities Just Because They Defy Federal Law on "Sanctuary Cities"
You don't have a country when half of the country believes it can live in open defiance of the law.

In a 128-page injunction, Senior United States District Judge Michael Baylson said Department of Justice (DOJ) law enforcement grants can't be withheld from Philadelphia because it refuses full cooperation with federal authorities on immigration, the news outlet reported. ...
In his ruling, Baylson said Philadelphia proved that withholding the grant money would cause irreparable damage, as part of it is used by first responders who provide life-saving naloxone to victims of opioid overdose, according to Inquirer reporter Jeremy Roebuck.

Still, the amount of money in question was just $1.4 million out of a $4.4 billion city budget, according to the Inquirer.

When at least half, probably two thirds, of the current government is part of #TheResistance against the actual legally-empowered government, it's time to confess we no longer have a shared civic culture and we are no longer one people under the law or in sentiment and take a mature attitude towards a peaceable division.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41778


« Reply #136 on: November 15, 2017, 01:12:37 PM »

I get the emotion, but what happens geopolitcally if we split up?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #137 on: November 15, 2017, 01:14:36 PM »

I get the emotion, but what happens geopolitcally if we split up?


Most likely better than if the split isn't peaceable. Then things will really hit the fan.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #138 on: November 25, 2017, 07:09:30 PM »

https://mobile.twitter.com/BrendanBordelon/status/934418166620524544

They set the standards.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!