Insurrection? Not really. Insurrection is an uprising against authority and what have happened in D.C. on the 6th was not an uprising. It was a peaceful demonstration turned somewhat violent with the help of some provocateurs. It was easily dealt with and what matters here is that overwhelming majority of people who came to Capitol had no intention to "rise up" and be insurrectionists whatsoever. They came to demonstrate. I already demonstrated what real insurrection, evolving into insurgency, looks like. It is understandable when some bimbo from CNN throws BS terminology around, but to expect that from Andrew Bacevich, a former cadre officer. Yet, here we are:
The insurrection of January 6 was this generation’s Altamont Moment. As did Altamont, it shattered delusions that never deserved to be taken seriously in the first place.
No, it was not "insurrection", that is why it ended relatively peacefully with, let's be honest, very few, however regrettable, victims and resumption of the work by Congress. Few scary moments and PR humiliation US Capitol (and US in general) endured as a result of that, bar some dramatic footage, produced zero effect in what Bacevich himself defines as:
Ours is a broken country. Fail to acknowledge that and the Great Insurrection of 2021 may be a mere precursor of worse things to come.
Yes, we know that and many do acknowledge this fact, but it doesn't make some pure hooliganism an insurrection. Let's use adequate terms. Now, if that wasn't enough, let's get to the issue of "freedom of speech". I will reiterate:
1. What is known in US as a "big-tech" is not and never was a "big-tech"--these are social network companies which produce nothing more than code, which is uploaded into their servers, which are produced by REAL tech companies, and the only product Facebook or Twitter produce is a wholesale exhibitionism, sexual and psychological disorders, and vast streams of BS. That is why I, personally, do not have FB, Twitter etc. accounts.
2. All this so called "big-tech" are nominally private companies. And don't give me this crap about them suppressing all others, well, boo-hoo. They are private companies and the fact that their monopoly (not really) hasn't been broken is the issue for POTUS and US Congress. Here is what I wrote when answering to one person at Colonel Lang's site yesterday re: this "freedom of speech".
Are Google, FB, Twitter, what have you, conduits for DNC ideology and policies? Absolutely, they are despicable, but it was society, users, customers who made them such. They also made sure that they are what they are in terms of influence. And US government didn't do a squat about it. So, what do you expect, that such DNC dumpsters as WaPo or NYT will start printing my articles? No. They have their own standards, however pathetic, dictated by their owners and that's that. My question here is next: where IS any real conservative platform, in a larger sense, ranging from own social network infrastructure to serious print press. What passes in the US for "conservative" media are as conservative as I am Chinese. If the President of the United States conducts his "policies", or, rather lack thereof, through private BS internet resource such as Twitter and Fox News is a neoliberal neocon cesspool, pretending to be "fair and balanced", what do you expect? US media are controlled top-bottom by a moneyed class and they will not allow any serious conservative thought to be represented, especially among generation which is, frankly, dumb and has an attention span of a fish, being unable to get their eyes off their phones.
Hey, "conservative" billionaires and the so called "patriots" with money, where is your initiative, where is you love for "freedom of speech", when you cannot even have an alternative platform developed? Forget platform, there are no good level conservative thinkers among you. In fact, I doubt there are many truly bright people out there in what passes in the US for a "conservative" movement. So, don't whine--you had a chance, you blew it, as did DJT who did nothing really to change anything in affairs which really mattered, even if considering a very real sabotage from establishment. The impotence on unprecedented scale. All talk, no actions. Now "big tech" shuts those who they do not like? Sure. Did you expect anything else? Now, with all those terms being thrown around casually, we better wake up and see that media hysteria changes absolutely nothing in Washington Consensus and that, should I have had my own platform I would have shutdown very many "lefty" ideas, because many of them, ranging from institutionalizing a sexual perversion to a radical anti-white racism, deserve to be thrown out of the political debate, as destructive and extremist. That is what being adequate means. As for GOP, it is by far more disturbing spectacle than impotent POTUS. But I am on record: if Democratic Party and its policies are clear and present danger, at least they talk about this openly, GOP is a bunch of cowards and traitors and as such they preside over the destruction of the country. Whigs, rings the bell? That's the adequate term.