Insurrection, Censorship, and Madness


#1

Originally published at: https://integrallife.com/insurrection-censorship-and-madness/

Mark and Corey take an in-depth look at the heart-breaking events at the Capitol, offering their own full-spectrum response to this American travesty. They also discuss the response coming from corporations such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook, who are now beginning to purge their platforms of far-right voices and Q anon supporters. Is censorship ever the right thing to do? If you think you have a simple answer to the question, you might be missing something important.


#2

Thank you Mark for your inspirational truths here, and I agree with Corey that this IJW discussion is probably the best “full-spectrum response” to the January 6 events anyone will find, and I hope the IL community and myriad others tune in.

Perhaps I am living in the “calm before the (next) storm,” but I’m actually feeling a bit of real hope, seeing the response over the past 9 days. When I first viewed the rioting event, and noted a seemingly restrained response from the Capitol Police, I was a little shocked. But now I tend to see the perfection in it all. While certainly not consciously intended as such, it seems to me the initial feeble and inadequate response from the Police was a bit like an Aikido move: using the energy of the opponent against them. Unable (or perhaps in some cases, unwilling) to restrain the insurrectionists, the Capitol law enforcement afforded the rioters the opportunity to record themselves in selfies and videos which they posted on social media, leading to their identification, and subsequent arrests. What a move!

And now, there seems to be a sweeping effort to address not only the threat of violent domestic extremism, but perhaps even racism in law enforcement and aspects of the military, according to numerous investigations that have been called for. With tech platforms taking some better-late-than-never action and multiple corporations and organizations cutting or vowing to cut funding to politicians complicit in advancing the idea of voter fraud and trying to delegitimize the presidential election, that too is a part of a necessary coming to terms with accountability.

What I have been reflecting on is how so much of this was foreseeable five years ago with Trump’s beginning campaign, initiated with the Obama birther-ism lie, his comments about Mexicans being rapists and such, and his “Access Hollywood” comments about grabbing women you-know-where, and how “if you’re a star, you can get away with it.” His “stardom” has allowed him to get away with that and so much more.

In the early days, we (or at least the majority of us) worried that the lying would become normalized, and indeed this happened, for about 40% of the electorate at least, about 75-80% of the Republican party. “Trump is not the cause, but the symptom” was a constant refrain, and while there’s some truth in this, I personally have never seen it as an either-or; Trump, imo, was/is both symptom and cause of a lot of damage to democracy and institutions, to civil society. More people are acknowledging that now, including the 10 (a mere 10, or about 4.5%) House Republicans who have voted for impeachment. Mitt Romney was the first Republican to put into words that the insurrection on Jan. 6 was largely due to members of his party not telling their supporters the truth, but a few others are chiming in likewise, and that’s a good sign.

But about those 10 Republican House members who voted for impeachment–while women make up about 12% of the Republican House caucus, 20% (2) of the ten who voted for impeachment were women. I mention this in the context of Trump’s comments about “grabbing women…” Some two dozen women have accused Trump of some kind of sexual misconduct, including rape; that’s a remarkable number and his ex-wife has said he beat and raped her as well. Research has shown that cultures or communities where women are oppressed or subject to violence or intimidation are more unstable cultures, more militaristic, and more likely to engage in warfare. To me, there is some correlation here between Trump’s (credibly) alleged behavior towards women (and children, we could add–as in cages) and his and his band of extremist-warriors’ militancy. That he supposedly told his V.P, trying to get Pence to reject the states’ certified electors, “you can either be a patriot or a pussy” speaks volumes about the connection.

Finally, a suggested topic for a future IJW episode would be on the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. Mark probably has some good knowledge here. With people like Franklin Graham, arguably the most influential Christian spokesperson, saying the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump this second time have “betrayed Christ,” and numerous other Christian pastors and leaders saying similar things, well, that speaks loudly about the white Christian nationalism among Trump supporters. While Trump supporters are not a monolithic group, and there are indeed real economic and social problems that need addressed, so do some of these ideologies, and understanding their historical roots in the U.S., their positives and negatives and effects on politics would probably be useful.

And one last finally…a little sardonic humor. A journalist I read who was otherwise writing a fairly decent article on the subject said we should declare and treat misinformation and disinformation as a “public health crisis”–with nary a nod to how dismally we’ve failed with the pandemic. You gotta laugh.


#3

Dear Corey and Mark,

Wow. Your “freight train of an episode” really gave me a lot to contemplate. First of all, I must say that this was the most intelligent and centered conversation I’ve seen on recent events in America, compared not just to mainstream media but other go-too sources of mine like SamHarris, RebelWisdom, UnHerd, etc etc. Secondly, your reflections on having the “right to the internet” as a public utility vs. the “right to a social media profile” truly hit the bull’s eye. We need to completely rethink our approach to regulating the Twitter’s and Facebook’s of the world because at best they are dumping too much toxic waste in the public square, and at worst they are used as weapons. We are way past the point of simply issuing verdicts on who should be banned or not. If the in-coming administration wants to have an honest conversation about ‘environmental’ policy and homeland security, social media and the web at large would actually be a good place to start, given how imminent of a threat the status quo poses to the well-being of our society.

Thanks again for putting together such an amazing show.

Take care,
Christian


#4

Unfortunately I do have to agree that this was the best coverage I can probably find.
It’s a sign of our times that not enough depth is given to these kinds of discussions.
But I see a lot of collective white shadows being skirted here. Many things were glossed over or not drilled down in depth enough.

  • Violent BLM protests false equivalency: Was it the BLM movement that started the violence, as inferred in the discussion, or Antifa? Or indeed, bad actors in law enforcement who actively tried to escalate the violence in many cities and the Far Right, who posed as Antifa while committing crimes to give law enforcement an excuse to escalate. This isn’t “conspiracy” talk. Several months after the riots many of these claims are documented and the bad actors identified.
  • False equivalency of motivations due to Naivete: The Far Right has been flat out saying what it wants to accomplish. Not the past months, not since Trump was elected, not since George W, but well back into the 1990’s. It’s been a systematic movement and messaging that has not changed. It wants America for White people, and has always advocated violence to accomplish this. While BLM is protesting just for the right to not be victims of brutal street executions, the Far Right’s cause is to maintain complete inequality due to race. Bailing people out for a peaceful protest gone bad is not “disgusting”, and bears no equivalency whatsoever to people who showed up for an insurrection where violence was illegal activity was implied from the get-go by the very nature of the event (preventing congress from doing it’s duties).
  • The “Astro Turf” Republican scapegoat: Authoritarianism, double standards and violence to achieve those ends are not just originating with this recent “Trump rabble” but have been an open policy of the Republican Party for half a century. These are very deep shadows in American Conservatism. Americans are exceptional and American lives are more important than lives of other Nations. From there it’s not much of a stretch to think “White American Lives”. Violence has always been accepted to maintain the American way of life by bombing and killing … whoever. Therefore it isn’t much of a stretch to just separate non-white or non-christians, or non-conservatives as Non-Americans and therefore killing them is ok - with the same exact moral values as the Nation has had for half a century with just being more specific about who is American and who is not. The rule of law in a similar way has also been applied when it benefits America but lies but violating the international rule of law has been accepted by most Americans and our leaders as a means of furthering our interests. Iraq, Vietnam and many other wars were based on lies and violations of the international rules of law.

I could go on and on, so I guess my summary is “Yes, the best discussion out there but still a lot of work to go.” My challenge is for everyone to look again at the issues, and see what shadows they were hiding from themselves the first time.


#5

With the internet question, we have to first separate our gut reactions from what is best for our society going forward. We have asked social media companies to crack down on Terrorism for almost two decades now. Why do we now see it as a problem that they are doing exactly what they have been asked to do for two decades? Why does this group get the benefit of the doubt and their voices calling for violence and planning out crimes are protected by the first amendment? Why is it an absolute that foreign terrorism obviously should be censored by social media but not domestic terrorism?
Is it my judgement that it is domestic terrorism and only my opinion that they are equivalent, or are my judgement and opinions based on a clear, unbiassed view? What are the facts vs what are the reactionary emotional charges in myself and others?
At the same time, we have to remember that this discussion has taken place before. Those as old as me or older remember we had these very same questions way back in the wild west of the internet in the 1990’s when all discussion was threatened because no sane company would allow anything to be posted anywhere if they could be sued for what others said, or if they could be sued for not allowing people to say whatever they wanted.
Ironically, I see the gut reaction of people sympathetic to more legal controls over social media as the exact opposite freedom of speech. Having the government regulate the specifics of how social media companies moderating their content is itself a contradiction. The First Amendment prevents the Government from telling you what you can’t say - not private industry.
The question is more if all the CEO’s talked to each other before taking universal action, or if they somehow just all agreed or some other dynamic is at work. If they coordinated - that could be an issue. But if the activity of one poster was just inherently bad for business, then then any sane person would take similar action without needing to consult each other.


#6

I read your report and curious, what “News Channels” you get your information from???
Now, It certainly was democrats who referred to this event as “insurrection” then everybody does the same… If that was an “Insurrection” what do you call what the BLM organization and Antifa have done to this Country???: They have been violent with Months of riots, burning Police stations, burning Cities, burning business of law abiding Americans, Assaulting police men, many assaults, stabbing , and shooting of Americans who express patriotism. The destruction of National monuments, burning the American flag and many. many American people have been badly and hurt and terrorized by those 2
groups.
From my perspective and from independent journalist video tapings who were present at the Capitol event, at least 2 of them recognized that members of those 2 groups BLM AND ANTIFA were amongs the crown of Americans on January 6. They had hammers, ropes, and knee pads and were ready to cause trouble.
If you believe what you see on your TV channels–you are only seeing what they want you to believe and the way they want you to think about it.
From my perspective, many Americans are protesting about all the political CORRUPTION that has been exposed and what? leaving the fate and future of this beautiful Country on the hands of crooks and twisted minds like Pelozi??? Most of them DO NOT HAVE THE BEST INTEREST for Americans.
But think the way your news channels want you to think about what is going on in this Country… Soon enough we will see their agendas, and every body, especially Trump haters will be sorry (except for CNN) for they are with the democrats agenda.


#7

Twitter and Facebook have been big spreaders of HATRED - along with CNN and MSNBC
CANCELLING the page for the President of the United States is totally unacceptable, it is wrong… And it is insulting they are allowing Iran and China to use twitter but censor our president.
For Americans that love their Country and their Freedom have to get smart and support each other instead of falling for the efforts to divide us by those very media channels.

Two alternative Platforms: PARLER and GAB


#8

The reason I joined Integral Life was because of KEN and believing that his followers would be of like minds and souls… But if I continue to read mostly THE SPOUTING OUT what fake news are telling people what to think; I was hoping in this site I would hear and share with people seeking higher consciousness and a deeper sense.


#9

A major part of Ken’s work is shadow work. It’s one of three main pillars. “Clean Up”.
The vast majority of the time when there is a large emotional charge to an issue, especially anger - there is some cleaning up that needs to be done.
If the question is about news channels and information was directed at me - I don’t own a TV and don’t pay for any companies to entertain me or provide me with information. I get the information directly from people themselves and draw my own conclusions. I can pop in and out of both far right and far left communities both online and in person. My social life is full of Liberals and my Professional life is full of Conservatives. Family is also on both sides of the spectrum and spread across the Nation from West Virginia to Utah to California. It’s not like we have to own a TV or even log into social media to get what people are saying. Heck, both half my siblings and my mother are Tea Party turned Trump Fanatics. I don’t think my experience is unique - so the idea that anyone needs to get their information from “News Channels” or the “Lamestream Media” is some kind of alternate reality suck in the 1990’s.
So back to cleaning up - part of the shadow is projecting things onto people and creating an enemy that does not actually exist to direct anger at, or creating arbitrary rules of behavior to make someone “unacceptably wrong” and so have another reason to be angry at them. Both Trump and Pelosi (and of course Hillary and every other controversial figure) are just magnets for whatever shadows people have and every shadow imaginable will cling to them like a tar baby. These past few weeks I personally am curiously observing my shadow that enjoys “Winning against the bully”. A sadistic, joyful shadow. Lots of liberals smiling with sadistic glee these days. But having a shadow isn’t “wrong” or “bad” - everybody has them. What’s important is owning one’s own shadows and not projecting them onto other people is Chapter 1.
I myself probably won’t continue with integrallife’s paid membership primarily because I’m in the Pacific and the timing of most content just doesn’t work for my schedule. So I’m not really representative of the population here at all.
It may well be that you will find more higher conscious patriots here. Hang in there.


#10

The Capitol Police officer who gave the order to stand down commits suicide 2 days later…

This is extremely old game FBI and CIA create psy ops lile QAnon to wind up mentally ill/vulnerable people. Then they set up a staged photo op, infiltrate with their own Agents Provacateurs, initiate violence and stand down, in order to demagogue the opposition as “terrorists”

What you saw were 5 million or more Trump voters who peacefully protested and a few fringe lunatics who took the bait. Some of those arrested were a professional actor and anarchist activist (Buffalo man) and an Antifa BLM activist who had been arrested before.

You have to be very stupid to believe the corporate oligarch technocracy calles mainstream media. They set up a false flag and 99.9% of trumps base did NOT take the bait. I am sure they were hoping for more mayhem.

Remember your media sources censored information on the Biden’s criminal activity, censored information in the election anomalies and fraud. They destabilized Ukraine in a similar way a few years ago. Biden withheld 1 billion dollars to Ukraine a poor country until they fired their chief prosecutor investigating Burisma corporation, involved in criminal activity lile human trafficking and corruption. And now they are telling you what happened according to their own narrative. Wake up.


#11

Seek help dear Isabel. Your email is full of pain.


#12

What do you mean by “domestic terrorism”??? Antifa and BLM Organizations???
As far as I learned, both of those are funded–they are getting paid for what they have been doing to this Country and American people. Also, as far as I know, Antifa is formed by foreigners from eastern European countries which are anarchist.

Sooo, is that domestic terrorism??? or is that what the media calls it???


#13

No, that is not Domestic terrorism.
Being “funded” does not make an organization terrorist. Millions of organizations and charities could not exist without funding. Charities are not terrorist, either.
Having “foreign” associations also does not make an organization terrorist. Obviously the International Olympic Committee “was formed by foreigners” - but the Olympics is not a terrorist organization.

So the answer is No.

Eastern European Countries are not Anarchist. If they were, they would not be counties, because Anarchy means no Government. Anarchy is also the complete opposite of Communism, which was the form of Government most common in Eastern Europe prior to the current Democratic Governments.

So again, No.


#14

I am not taking sides here, I just want to help further the conversation. Alexa has already given some arguments why she uses the word “terrorism”. For example:

“They [BLM and antifa] have been violent with Months of riots, burning Police stations, burning Cities, burning business of law abiding Americans, Assaulting police men, many assaults, stabbing , and shooting of Americans who express patriotism. The destruction of National monuments, burning the American flag and many. many American people have been badly and hurt and terrorized by those 2 groups.”

This is probably what she meant with " for what they have been doing to this Country and American people." in her last post.

I think if you want to argue that it is not terrorism, this is worth answering instead.

Edit: maybe my interjection is not of much help without defining what can be considered as “terrrorism” There are many definitions and I haven’t found an integral one. What about this one: “Terrorism is a violent act that seeks to influence an audience beyond the immediate victim”?

Speaking as a non-US national about what happened in the capitol, in my opinion it matters if the police had opened the doors for the protestors or not. If they did as is suggested in some video footage, I could take the perspective that that is an invitation to enter a public building. These people deserve another treatment than the ones that were breaking windows.


#15

Drieske:
In fact, you are taking sides. I mean, that just is what it is.

My point is to question the selective narrative, the double standard and false equivalency and so on. While I am inherently biased, I suspect it isn’t at all in the way you might suspect. If I were to claim to be completely unbiased, that would be a sign to myself that I am hiding a shadow. Very, very very few people are completely unbiased.

The BLM protests were very complicated in determining who is at “fault”. Are you willing to recognize that in many cases the Police escalated the violence and acted in bad faith? Are you willing to accept that in many cases the far right were the ones actually instigating the violence and vandalism? I can provide substantiation for these accusations. In the months since many of the instigators have been identified and turns out many of them have a far right background, or even just random people living in the areas. I don’t want to overwhelm the post with links, but here are a few. They are not “evidence” - but an unbiased person would look at them with at least the same credibility as any other narrative:





So first - my challenge was and is to recognize that this past spring it was not just “BLM” - but a lot of bad actors on many sides fanning the flames. Bad actors were on the far left, the far right, the establishment, random suburbanites, and all the way up to the President. “What they are dong to this country and the American people” - is a one-sided judgement and allocates all blame that should be placed on multiple parties all onto BLM. It also sets up a victim-persecutor dynamic. To lay it all at the feet of “BLM” is taking a side and not actually trying to find out what really happened, but instead take a narrative with an agenda behind it and repeat it.
Then there was an attempt to project that very thing (repeating a narrative) onto me personally (perhaps) or onto an unknown person personally. I questioned if it was being directed at me personally and explained why I felt the projection wasn’t accurate.

So on the one hand the narrative shared by many is that the Spring Riots were all on the heads of BLM and they are terrorists. The other hand is the narrative that the people participating in Dec 6 were “invited in” or at worst were “breaking windows”.
This really is taking sides and I challenge that there is a very dark collective shadow there. The very fact that the Dec 6 incident did not result in an overwhelming militarized police presence complete with rubber bullets, water cannons and tear gas with dozens arrested or hospitalized (as happened in BLM protests) is a show of cultural bias and a symptom of tribalism. To not question this suggests “taking sides”.
Out of the thousands of people who participated in Dec 6, less than a hundred actually faced any kind of backlash whatsoever, so whether they “deserved another treatment” or not, the vast majority did get away with no punishment at all.
The definition of what terrorism is and what it is not - that question isn’t so relevant as selective storytelling.
Yes, we can tell a story about BLM and we might even believe it at our own psychological peril. Believing the BLM story as a kind of Orwellian “Goldstein” representation as terrorists and all that is unAmerican without looking at the complexity of the matter is just the prologue to turning a blind eye to the bigger problems.


#16

Wow, my statement about not taking sides has stirred quite a reaction. I think I was talking about the question of BLM and antifa being terrorist organizations, I really don’t have looked into to issue enough to decide. I leave that to others. I certainly have biases and lots of shadow elements that I want to know better.
I want to backtrack a little.
You were the first on this topic using the term (domestic) terrorism in post no 5, probably related to the events in the capitol and thereafter. Alexa in her posts nos 6 and 12 disagreed that his was terrorism and asked you if Antifa and BLM were terrorist organizations.
I hope this is a correct summary. Your reply to Alexa felt rather condescending. It seemed you reacted first to 2 (quite ridiculous) strawman arguments (like “if an organization is funded/foreign then It is an terrorist organization”). Then you reacted to a claim that Alexa made about easteuropean countries being “anarchist”. You are completely correct but It seemed you wanted to prove you knew more about the world. Because it doesn’t seem relevant to the question on terrorism. So essentially you seemed to answer the question but ignored it.

That made me want to react to see if I could help the 2 of you understand each other or yourselves better. Possibly the fact that I am male and I suppose you are too and Alexa is not played a role.
In your reply you are still avoiding the question (which is your right).

I don’t agree that phrase is even a judgement. I agree with your challenge that these different groups you mention have all responsibilities. But that does not mean Alexa can’t talk in this way about the responsibility of one group. Just like we can talk about what Trump is doing to this country and the American people, what White supremacists are doing to this country and the American people, Police provocateurs, the Democrats, racism, covid19… You get the point.

Understanding what happened at the Capitol seems far more simpler, not that I have studied all the details. I just wanted to add a perspective I haven’t read in the media in my country or on this forum. You are right that I didn’t really question “why this incident did not result in an overwhelming militarized police presence complete with rubber bullets, water cannons and tear gas with dozens arrested or hospitalized.” What interests me more are the intentions and actions of the people that took part in the events like the protestors and the police. In that regards I find it important to know if the doors were opened by the police. In the media of my country the dominant narrative is that the protestors “stormed” the capitol, the glass of windows and entrance doors was smashed, after which hundreds of protesters gained access. It was part of an attempted coup.

We have 2 narratives here and one of them should be closer to the facts. For me it would also make a difference why the police were ordered to open the doors. To avoid people who were getting trampled? Because they were being damaged? To make the protesters look more horrible on TV? I am not saying that is the case. Have all of you who have a judgement on the protesters taken the time to listen what the participants have to say themselves? I found it interesting.


#17

Again, my point is to question the selective narrative.
Your post was completely relative to what I was trying to show, which is why I’m spending so much effort replying.

The information is out there for people to see several sides of the issue. We are no longer limited to a handful of broadcast news channels. We are not even limited to two (The “Liberal Media” VS “Fair and Balanced” lol) Our ability to find multiple views regarding the news is at everyone’s fingertips. It’s only by choice (usually subconscious) that one choses one narrative over the other. With many so many different sides of the BLM, every time someone tries to redirect the issue of the insurrection at the capital as equivalent to BLM - that is taking sides. The choice is made either consciously or subconsciously "Oh - I don’t want to address this thing I am uncomfortable with. Let me bring back something to divert attention. BLM means we don’t have to look at the insurrection. “It’s all the same”.
It’s a good way to distract people away from the actual topic - the criminal activity at the capitol - and bring the focus onto BLM. The only reason I bring BLM up is to point out that it is not the same thing as the insurrection even a little bit, so “they are both the same” just does not work.
The narrative that the insurrectionists were “invited in” is also a selective narrative. In other words, taking sides. I think at best in a chaotic situation like that can you can say many things happened in many places differently. Maybe in some places they were invited in by someone. (But not actually invited really wink wink) while in one circumstance an officers was dragged into the crowd and beaten to death, and in other circumstances they broke in through windows, in other circumstances the officers feared for their lives and shot a woman, in other circumstances the officers retreated due to overwhelming danger, in other circumstances the officers calmly and cleverly tried to redirect the crowd, and many other circumstances I’m sure.
For anyone to take the single narrative “They were invited in.” That is taking a side. When I see half a dozen narratives and people chose one as their preference, to me they have chosen one narrative over others and have “taken a side”.
Also understand that when someone says “I am / am not ________, but _______.” The first part (the disclaimer) 9/10 times can be completely thrown away and the second part is closer to the truth. This is common in the USA as “I’m not racist, but (insert racist statement)”. So I think it’s become more and more common to just ignore when people say "I’m not _____, and just listen to the part after “but”.
It’s always problematic to assign emotions or motives to the person behind the writing. With only the printed words, it’s human nature to “fill in the blanks” regarding the person’s emotional state behind the keyboard and their motives. More often than not, when we attempt to do that we insert our own emotions onto the “blank page”.
Whatever my motive was or wasn’t with regard to Alexa or responding to you, focusing on that again is “taking a side”. I won’t say “attack the man” (ad hominem) you didn’t attack me - but maybe “turn attention to the man” to focus on what you would like my motives to be so that it takes away from what the discussion is actually about - again the unpleasant business of talking about the insurrection rather than deflecting it onto a discussion about what could possibly be wrong with me.

So, how do we address people like Alexa (in my judgement amber / red) in a “Teal” way?
In my opinion, ignoring does not work - I have seen this grow over the past two decades in family and friends and just letting “Uncle Joe” ramble and rant on at family BBQ’s has resulted in us being where we are today.
Likewise, the “Green” method of listening with compassion respecting everyone’s opinions also isn’t working.
Or the Orange / Amber of not engaging in dialogue with them because it might lower one’s esteem in the eyes of fellows in the hierarchy of academics / experts also falls short because it is essentially ignoring.
So in my opinion at this stage in the United States, the only sane way to deal with this (Rush Limbaugh) problem that has been growing for 20-30 years is to address the falsehoods directly and sternly. “No, that is not accurate and this is why.” “No, that does not make sense and this is why”.
And again, if it looked like my motive for responding to make myself feel like I know more about the world … that’s more you than me and very much beside the point. I (kind of obviously) probably do know more so it would be very hard for me to present an image that I don’t know more - but that isn’t even close to the reason why I replied. Frankly, if I’m placed on the spot it was to confront ignorant ideas.
If anyone has some ways to do this in a “Teal” way I’d be interested in hearing it, but in my opinion Green isn’t working at all.
But again, that is a way you decided to take a side.
Nothing bad on you or anything emotional - just you did take a side is what I’m saying. We all do it to some degree or another so I’m not saying you are the only person who is taking a side. I don’t think I am neutral at all.
My point is to question the selective narratives both in the video and in this discussion.
Edit / adon:
I found this video in one minute through Google.
The “They were invited in by the Capitol Police” is only a single, narrow narrative that many people chose to believe. But the other sides to the story are out there to find very easily.


Is it appropriate to use straw man arguments on this integral forum?
#18

Your reply raises many interesting points.

I will try not to feel responsible when you seem to misinterpret me. I see still value in your misinterpretations for the possibility that they make me aware of my shadow elements. I will let you know when I think you have spotted any. When I do take sides, I already know I have a bias toward the one that I find is the most marginalized by the dominant culture. It is a shadow issue, not always useful. But that is not all that is going on here, especially not on the terrorism issue. I hope someone can agree that, because of the fact that I have never voted in a US election, I have at least the potential to be less biased than the people who did vote for one of the 2 candidates in the last elections. That is at least what I try.

If I understand you correctly, you think Alexa brought up BLM to distract people from the topic of the Capitol. (And you also didn’t agree about the way BLM was mentioned in the podcast.) There are other possible motives why she or others could bring this up. My guess is that she brought this up because she thinks that some people here have a strong bias toward the Trump supporters involved. She addressed you because you used the loaded word “terrorism”. She challenged you to explain what the essential differences are between the two cases in the hope that by doing so or refusing to do so you would show or realize how big your bias was.

I admit I could be way off here. But I know for a fact that she is aware that there are different narratives for both the BLM riots and the Captitol and she is obviously also aware that people are selective and biased, which are both important points that you feel you have to keep repeating. Furthermore I see nobody on the forum make the argument here that these 2 events are “the same thing”, maybe this is another straw man.

This brings me to another interesting point for this topic raised by your rhetorical question, which touches the topic of censorship:

I will assume you know that these labels are not supposed to be used to judge people but their worldviews and I will just add that I don’t find enough information on this forum to conclude what perspectives Alexa is able to take. I think this could also be relevant for what happened between isabel and sandraworth on this topic (“Seek help dear Isabel”).

I like to rephrase the question a little to
"So, how do I address people that according to my own (fallible) judgement are centered at amber / red [or toxic green] on this integral forum?"

I would suggest to let our experience in the real world not guide us too much. I would assume that people who come here have a strong desire to grow and learn, which is not always the case in the real world. My own instinct would be to go for the healthy green approach "listening with compassion, respecting everyone’s opinions ". If this would not be working I would probably try another approach. I find that corey-devos has already thought well about this and that the community road rules are really great, just a bit long to read ;-). So I would follow them closely. Please let me know if I didn’t live up to them. Thanks for letting me understand what you were trying to do with your last post to Alexa: [addressing falsehoods directly and sternly / confront ignorant ideas]. That does explain your reaction about anarchy. But that doesn’t explain the 2 straw man arguments. And I still don’t know what you hoped to achieve regarding Alexa.

That video you linked to was very horrible, I see a lot of red anger. By the way, I have never said that I knew everything that happened there. And I also don’t think that anyone on this forum is taking the single narrative “They were invited in.” I hope I explained my view here well, as you have guessed English is not my first language. You can ask me a question if something is still not clear.


#19

I really think it is doing a disservice to this forum to keep this discussion about me and mostly avoiding the points that myself and others actually brought forward to have a discussion about.
A response by me seems kind of pointless at this point because I am not interested in discussing me, but the topics I brought forward in my first post.

From y original post:

  • Violent BLM protests false equivalency: Was it the BLM movement that started the violence, as inferred in the discussion, or Antifa? Or indeed, bad actors in law enforcement who actively tried to escalate the violence in many cities and the Far Right, who posed as Antifa while committing crimes to give law enforcement an excuse to escalate. This isn’t “conspiracy” talk. Several months after the riots many of these claims are documented and the bad actors identified.
  • False equivalency of motivations due to Naivete: The Far Right has been flat out saying what it wants to accomplish. Not the past months, not since Trump was elected, not since George W, but well back into the 1990’s. It’s been a systematic movement and messaging that has not changed. It wants America for White people, and has always advocated violence to accomplish this. While BLM is protesting just for the right to not be victims of brutal street executions, the Far Right’s cause is to maintain complete inequality due to race. Bailing people out for a peaceful protest gone bad is not “disgusting”, and bears no equivalency whatsoever to people who showed up for an insurrection where violence was illegal activity was implied from the get-go by the very nature of the event (preventing congress from doing it’s duties).
  • The “Astro Turf” Republican scapegoat: Authoritarianism, double standards and violence to achieve those ends are not just originating with this recent “Trump rabble” but have been an open policy of the Republican Party for half a century. These are very deep shadows in American Conservatism. Americans are exceptional and American lives are more important than lives of other Nations. From there it’s not much of a stretch to think “White American Lives”. Violence has always been accepted to maintain the American way of life by bombing and killing … whoever. Therefore it isn’t much of a stretch to just separate non-white or non-christians, or non-conservatives as Non-Americans and therefore killing them is ok - with the same exact moral values as the Nation has had for half a century with just being more specific about who is American and who is not. The rule of law in a similar way has also been applied when it benefits America but lies but violating the international rule of law has been accepted by most Americans and our leaders as a means of furthering our interests. Iraq, Vietnam and many other wars were based on lies and violations of the international rules of law.

#20

I finally was able to finish listening/watching the podcast and have to say I find it very good. I always appreciate it when people at least try to control for their inherent biases. To take just an example the discussion about whether Trump incited a riot or not was very balanced. (I haven’t heard or read his entire speech so I can’ judge). So was the treatment of the question if it what happened in spring was on the same scale as what happened in the capitol. I was particularly attentive to what Corey said about this community:

Our mission together is to be one of these pockets of coherence… I want to make sure that all of us are doing our very best to be kind with each other, to cohere as a community, to learn the art of taking down our political personalities when we need to so that we can have human conversations with each other and start growing this thing together…and to bring the integral solutions that are so required for these life conditions.

I hope it is clear that the point I am trying to make is bigger than the behaviour of 1 member. In my own humble opinion it may be vital for this forum and it is in the appropriate topic. I am quite shocked to witness possibly 2 members on this forum trying to silence or cancel others (instead of just focusing on their expressed views or behaviours). I agree that a statement like “You have to be very stupid to believe the corporate oligarch technocracy called mainstream media.” is also not kind or agreeable. But an important difference is that it wasn’t directed at someone in particular, so you have more choice how you take it in.

I appreciate that it has been a very disturbing time, especially in the US. But it is not a new development. Here is an example of somebody expressing this on another topic (while I do not agree with everything).

He seems to have gotten no response and hasn’t posted in the 7 months since. Just like the 2 people on this topic. This reminds me of one of the observations Robb was making in his last article about people going “platform shopping” because “the platforms are mis-accommodating what is actually happening”. I am really hoping with Corey that together we can make this work.