My mostly-unfiltered thoughts on the Jacob Blake police shooting, the riots in Kenosha, WI, the shootings involving Kyle Rittenhouse, and the subsequent trial.
I really enjoyed this one. It left me with a knot in my stomach for the complete railroading of a kid who easily could have been me, or someone I know if put in that situation. I respect Dan Carlin a lot for his over all body of work, but it’s no secret he leans left. I think you were right to point out that he came out with a podcast vehemently against the capital riots, but not a word about the worst riots in 50 years, perpetrated by people who happen to align more with his ideology. The 2 scenarios are not even remotely comparable, especially if you look at the damage done.
This is by far the most worthwhile podcast subscription I have. I think I can speak for everyone when I say, I feel I have already gotten my money’s worth.
I’m going to go on Dan’s defense here and say that I agree with him that the Capitol riot was on a different level than the BLM riots. The BLM riots were a failure of law enforcement, egged on by politicians and the media that couldn’t seem to distinguish between historic systemic racism and lawless destruction that mostly damaged the very people they *claim* to care about. Its actually pretty easy to fix and stop, too. Call out the national guard, give law enforcement the support of the politicians, and it stops in a day or two.
The Capitol riot was an attack on democracy. Yes they were a bunch of disorganized goons that should probably be pitied rather than prosecuted. And no they didn’t really damage anything. But look at the precedent they set! If you don’t like an election, now it’s ok to go to the Capitol and try to force a different result.
Next time, the riot won’t be like this one. We have opened Pandora’s box.
The logical conclusion to this, is widespread civil war. The BLM riots never had that potential.
For what it’s worth politically I’m probably more in line with Dan than Daryl, but significantly more libertarian. But I do greatly appreciate what Daryl says.
Capitol Riot and BLM riots were both encouraged and mishandled by our supposed leaders. Not cool on either front. From the perspective of leadership, both were a failure and betrayal.
I kind of agree. I think it would be silly of them to think that anything they actually did would change the election at all. Maybe some of them thought it might but probably very few. This isn't the 1300s anymore. Occupying a building doesn't mean you're the new government. If they had stayed longer it would probably have ended up like waco. But if you're going to riot and protest the government I can't think of any better place to do it. It's better than destroying your own community. It wouldnt hurt for those politicians in Washington to have just a little bit of fear of the American people.
I'm sure I'll have absolutely no one agree with me on this as I do tend to have a bit of an anarchist streak. What's that quote? "if the people fear the government, you have tyranny. If the government fears the people, you have liberty". Something like that. I think that's spot on. They're not affraid to be corrupt because they have absolutely no accountability. Ok that's all 😀
Agreed 1000%. I'm referring to the quote above. The government having consent, whether active or passive is different than the government living in fear of the people. Our government has not feared the people in my lifetime.
Any government founded on revolution fears the next one. The Bolshevists were shitting their pants about the prospect, to the point they preemptively genocides anybody with slightly rebellious tendencies.
Yeah, I agree with this. The BLM rioters weren't the problem, they did what they were allowed to get away with when no one cracked down on them. The guilty party there was the politicians reigning in the police and the media for apologizing for rioting and lying about what was happening.
Mr Cooper thank you for releasing this to the public! This is the best summary of not only the Rittenhouse trial but what we were seeing play out in the summer of 2020. Thank you for this podcast.
I will be so glad for this to be shareable publicly. Right off the bat I want my daughters to hear it. You just make the case so much better than I am capable of doing it.
That’s not necessarily true. It was eye opening for me. And my politics are pretty closely aligned with Dan Carlin. Which is pretty smack dab in the center. To characterize Carlin as leftist because he did an episode on the capitol riots and not on the 2020 BLM insanity is, to me, an overreach. I listen to Darryl because his research is excellent and his analysis is based on solid logic. I prefer my podcasts to live in this realm, regardless of the presenter’s politics.
I don't think so. I am actually planning to share this with my most progressive friend because I think it pretty fairly summarizes the issue and shows how blatantly ridiculous it has become.
I want to do the same but once he gets into the antifa commentary he loses his credibility to the left. I'm pretty far left and so is everyone I know. Comes with being Canadian. I'd love to share his excellent commentary to show how partisan the trial has become but then he gets into antifa stuff that sounds pretty sketchy, then making it partisan again. I'm being really critical of a one off, flash episode because that's the critique he will face if he released publicly. I like these rant episodes being between us subscribers.
I'm also a Canuckian (Victoria, BC) and there is a fair amount of criticism of antifa here, probably because we are closer to Portland and Seattle and can relate more to the crap that was going on there.
Could see Ontario people being more turned off by criticism of antifa since I've noticed the leftists there align pretty hard with the Democrats.
I think that's true but it's not being critical of antifa I'm concerned about. It's some of the things he claims about them that really sound like right wing bs. For example I seriously doubt antifa was standing at the protests handing out 20's and 100's to people to protest. It makes no sense and sounds so sleazy. If you give someone a hundred bucks to protest then most reasonable people will walk in the general direction of the protest then go home. A fool parted from their money. Personally, I would go back for seconds and thirds because taking money from sleazy people like that wouldn't bother me. Darryl doesn't have the time to fully fact check episodes like this and any flaw will cause left wing people to dismiss him as a right wing nut. Though someone mentioned he could release it seperate from the MM podcast which seems reasonable
I disagree, what if the facts turn them on, challenges them to think, do research, etc. With all due respect, fear is not a virtue. Who wants to live in a world where one has to worry about pleasing everyone? It is healthy to agree to disagree.
Maybe some, but definitely not all. I know a large number of lefties who've been captured by the CNN-Youtube-NYT bubble, but they know that the Regime (in all its works) is increasingly not passing the sniff test. Already a couple have broken free, and this podcast may unleash even more.
I consider myself left of Daryl, yet this was an eye opener. I will say that the reasoning presented here would be hard to present, in turn, to some people in my life that are on the “unwoke” left. Daryl can do it. I can’t.
I mean, I agreed with just about everything Darryl said in this episode, but I feel that putting it out there in the public would not be as revelatory as we might hope. When I talk with my left-leaning family members (who I love! who mean well!), they simply do not agree that rioting was a big problem in 2020, or Antifa, or any of that. And why would they? Unless you spent that summer looking at videos on social media or tracking right-leaning news sources, there was a sort of information vacuum that leads us now to occupy different mental realities.
Yeah, I'm in a very blue place with very good friends and family in this bubble who never said much about the riots, and I always assumed they were perfectly aware but it was simply uncomfortable to their politics. I made the mistake of bringing this up once when one of these friends went apeshit over 1/6 and demanded I answer for my support of Trump (which they assumed and I never mentioned). I asked to know why they had never said a single solitary word about the better part of a year of riots with dozens of deaths and billions of dollars in damage and...wow. The response confirmed that we are operating in different realities.
It's super frustrating. I wasn't a Trump supporter, and the first whiff I had of Antifa was when I went to the anti-Trump rally the weekend after he was elected. There was a festive atmosphere in downtown Phoenix, basic Starbucks moms pushing strollers around. I was myself in this camp, and went with my wife and kid. But in the midst of this there was a bunch of black-clothed weirdos marching in formation with weapons, who I would later figure out were part of the local Antifa group. It was just wild to me that for months when you could go on Twitter every night and see the new videos of fires etc. from downtown Portland, and then I'd visit Facebook and see all my nice suburban associates arguing sharing memes about how Antifa doesn't exist. It has all just been very very weird.
The Andy Ngo videos were a huge red pill. Even if that's not what you're referring to, it's basically the same stuff. I'd reluctantly click over every night and just be floored by what I was seeing in Portland. I sent the link to a friend once and he tried to just send me stuff debunking Andy Ngo and accusing him of this or that. It's liked dude, I'm sending you raw video...I don't give a damn about the account. You're sending me high school snark as a rebuttal. These people won't even trust their own eyes.
Yes, I'm sure we were watching the same videos. What made me crazy was when I'd have conversations with people who would say things like, "Well, I'd rather look at NPR than just social media, because then it's gone through some level of fact-checking," but the very problem was that much of the information that was being documented every evening was not being presented in a neutral tone, and it was pretty questionable whether it was being independently checked either. I was reading Twitter, and the NPR reporters were reading Twitter, and then I was having conversations with people who just wanted to only take as fact those events that the NPR reporters had elected to pass on to their listeners.
Yep, when the gate keepers of knowledge aren't on your side it's maddening. Reality isn't that difficult to figure out if you're still sane. I recently had the insight that there are really two types of people: those with goals and those with principles. The people with principles often don't even realize they have principles or don't have them consciously in mind, but they're there regardless. Those with goals but not principles will always be "the ends justify the means" types. This seems to be an eternal war between the two cognitions. If you only have goals, there's really no level of depravity or delusion or gaslighting you won't sink to in order to achieve some end. Or maybe I'm just drinking too much gin lately.
I have been censoring myself for months for this very reason, but I've started to speak up. I think the self-censorship is part of the playbook. That, and the demoralization that comes from hearing, over and over again, that what you're seeing with your own eyes is not happening. But I'm just dipping my toe into the water of calmly pushing back on the dominant narrative, because it's not easy. To be frank, when you start talking about antifa and political violence, you get a lot of nod-and-smile subject changes or awkward silences. Still, it just doesn't seem right to let all the BS go unchallenged.
+1 to this suggestion. Many people who are too fare gone into the Matrix may resort to hatred and deflection after hearing your words. They may never come around. But there are plenty, plenty more who will hear what you are saying and it will be their starting point toward the light.
I second this, especially with the trial in the spotlight now, may gain you some new listeners. Anyone turned off by this might not be a big fan of your material anyway.
The official narrative is that Kyle is a mass murdering white supremacist and everyone who publicly supports him will be tarred with that. Cops lost their job for “anonymously” contributing to the gofundme when that was released.
Everything Darryl said in this podcast was public knowledge at the time. While my mom may not have known it, I can’t imagine every journalist, activist, or person actually firing someone for supporting KR didn’t.
They may not have had it laid out in such a clean and clear manner for them. This podcast was beautiful. But those acting on this knew the information. Look at the CNN or yahoo news headlines about the judge and think about it Darryl can afford to be branded as an irredeemable bigot.
Absolutely amazing how he takes so many disparate threads and ties them all together. His podcasts completely shifted the way I view historical and current events.
My take is slightly more generous generous yours but also very sad. Very few know he is a pedophile. The lefties against Rittenhouse are mostly young and extremely ignorant and have strong opinions based on headlines from articles they didn't bother reading. Many think he killed at least one black person so that should tell you something.
It's intense that the Democraric establishment bases their strategy around lies that they just hope most of their supporters are too lazy to ever read the Wikipedia article regarding.
The lefties who do bother reading past the headline are probably just too afraid of losing their social circle to say that the whole thing is nonsense.
It’s really disheartening to see so many people who think someone should get away with murder because it agrees with their politics. Why should a 17 year old criminal, he did illegally acquire an assault rifle, not face any repercussions for taking said illegally acquired weapon into public with the intent of using against a human when he had no legal right to do so, no training in law enforcement just a big dose of vigilante bravado.
There’s lots of talk through threads of the left only reading headlines, it’s not only the left that do that, plenty of the right also only read headlines, and also only surround themselves with right wing articles and politics, the right wing poster boy Joe Rohan just got triggered by a satirical news article in Australia, while right wing American broadcasters call for an invasion of Australia to ‘free us’…… You truly have no idea
Actually, he did not illegally acquire the gun. It was given to him by a friend. In many states in the US, a 17 year old can use a gun, just not purchase said weapon. That being said, if I were Kyle's parent, I would have kicked his butt for going near a riot, but he was not legally in the wrong based on Wisconsin law.
Do they really care though? I feel like all they care about is the narrative to fit their agenda - racism, white supremacy, domestic terrorists, control, etc. Never let a crisis go to waste and if there isn’t one - create one.
So I have some major disagreements with what you said. Not in this being clear self defense (it was), but in your framing of almost everything.
1) We are an increasingly polarized, “sick society” but it is not due to the machinations of some “regime” favoring one side. All I have to do counter your narrative about how all the institutions have it out for conservatives is to list the numerous powerful interests, corporate figures, religious institutions, and media outlets that regularly back Republican and conservative political efforts and campaigns.
This disinformation isn’t a product of conspiracy. For Media outlets, it’s a problem of an increasingly perverse sales incentives in an ever more crowded market combined with increasingly insular media consumption from an ever more polarized populace. They need clicks to survive and they need to be first to cover a story. That’s why Blake was sold as just another example of a innocent black man being randomly gunned down before a single bit of info was discovered. There was a convenient and long standing narrative that was easy to sell to their political audiences. That’s also why Rittenhouse was sold in headlines as right wing militia nut.
Politicized left wingers have a narrative about cops and black people. They see a headline about Rittenhouse killing protestors, and in some cases, just assume it’s basically a Nazi killing black civil rights protestors.
This isn’t a left wing phenomenon. You need only look to the insane narrative around tump and elections as a counter example. Not to mention covid, our handling of which continues to suffer from right wing disinformation campaigns (inarguably, this has killed far more than than the 20-30 in the 2020 riots). It’s clear that this polarizing disinformation is occurring across the political spectrum. And not all problems are stemming from on wing.
A few other things.
2) Do you have more info on Antifa I can read up on? Interested to know where you got that info from.
3) the immigration bit at the beginning seemed like an non sequitor and your zero sum view of relations between ethnic groups seemed pretty damn strange. Especially since ethnicity is hardly the only identity we organize around in this country.
4) Finally, your accusation about carlin can be thrown right back at you. Where was your emergency podcast about Jan 6? Carlin can make a credible argument that Jan 6 riots had a far higher stakes (a bunch of rubes wanted to turn over the certification of a presidential election) than one courthouse in Portland. Which is why he made his podcast. Not really understanding why you were upset with him for not covering Portland.
Excellent comment, agree 100%. I had the same question about Antifa. Cooper is typically so scrupulous about defining and explaining all sides of a controversy, but I felt he threw in Antifa without explaining how he knows this to be true. I’m not saying it’s not true-I’m simply saying he did not provide evidence. If he has it, I want to see it. I would love for him to dedicate an entire podcast to Antifa.
I also felt he gave a pass to KR for obtaining a gun illegally and underage. If what he hoped to achieve demanded carrying a weapon, then he should’ve stuck to helping in a capacity that didn’t require a gun, or just sat out altogether.
I mean giving someone the money to purchase you a weapon that you aren’t legally allowed to purchase doesn’t exactly scream legal. But I guess it really just depends if you are a letter of the law or spirit of the law person
While evidence would be cool, stuff like that seems challenging for current events. Let’s say 80 of 100 arrested people have records like he described:
Does that mean a big fraction of the antifa types are like that or only of the ones who got arrested?
If you say riot violence was instigated by police agent provocateurs, I bet there were examples of that in 2020.
When he says Antifa leaders hand out cash to start shit, I bet he’s right.
I doubt any of that becomes public record for a while and we may never know what the balance of shit starting was in that crazy summer. If he has a real source of information, he probably can’t reveal it yet.
I don't believe he ever said that disinformation is an entirely left wing phenomenon. If you want his take on the election stuff he did a bunch of tweets about it a while back. And I think the issue with Carlin's stance is that many people see the good people doing destruction as acceptable and the bad people doing destruction as a horrible threat to mankind. There's a bias there, and Carlin tries to be non partisan but his left wing programming comes out. I think it's pretty obvious that the issue here is that only one side has any accountability, even though the other side caused far more damage, death, and loss of livelihood.
Carlin, at least by my estimate, has always been center right. Not exactly liberal. Did Dan ever comment on the protests and riots of 2020? I don't think he did. And if that's the case, his silence on that topic does not mean he would approve of that sort of destruction. I think the central reason Dan made an emergency episode after J6 was because he (rightly in my mind) saw a distinction between a riot which burns down local gas stations or stores, and one which sought to disrupt a certification of one of our national elections. A riot which only happened because a president and his circle of followers insisted for months (without any evidence) that our political system was rigged. That his loss in that election was impossible. The stakes are just different in these two cases. At least that's how I see it.
You saying the stakes are different indicates that an insurrection could have ever been successful. The only reason anything ever happened that was newsworthy was because they were let in.
And I didn't say that Carlin is a liberal, he just has liberal programming. A lot of people on the right do. I was listening to Jonah Goldberg (old school neocon) talk about the Rittenhouse trial and before he said "but it was clearly self defense" he had to throw in all his liberal misinformation priors about how he shouldn't have been there in the first place and he shouldn't have crossed state lines with a fully semi-automatic ar-15. People drink this Kool aid on all sides of the aisle. And you don't hear very many liberals repeating right wing talking points. Might be a tangent but whatever.
The stakes are different not because they could have succeeded in overturning the election that day. The stakes are different both because the lives of elected officials were threatened because of a fraudulent conspiracy theory (pushed by a president), and because this tact GOP politicians are starting to take following trump (i/e every election they lose is rigged) is dangerous. It erodes the legitimacy and functionality of our system. We, as a country, have had riots in throughout our history and we have recovered. What is far less common is mainstream political figures casting doubt on our elections for base political and financial gain. If this continues, its going to get very ugly.
On Rittenhouse, I honestly don't see what's wrong with Dan or Goldberg thinking a 17 year old should not have been there. He shouldn't have been. No shortage of experienced adults could have taken his place. Fair point on the "crossed state lines with a weapon" stuff though. It's a point that is both inaccurate (he did not cross state lines with that weapon) and irrelevant (he lived 15 minutes away and worked in Kenosha).
People did not start thinking elections were rigged because of Trump. People called shenanigans on Bush 2 both times. As far as the holy legitimacy of our electoral process, look up the Diebold backdoor hack.
Dan is certainly not center-right. I never thought of 'left' and 'right' as absolute terms, but it's something that always describes the contemporary state of affairs. Holding the same view as left wingers did in the 90's can put you on the right side of the spectrum in 2021. With that in mind, Dan would rather qualify as rather left-wing. Whenever Dan put his foot down (which wasn't very often, he is somewhat risk-averse) he always took positions that were more in line with the Democratic Party's agenda. Occasionally I even agreed with him, despite being fairly reactionary, e.g. when he was discussing the American healthcare system in one of his Common Sense episodes. But he is not on the right, that's for certain.
The BLM riots were also about changing the election, those riots just as political, and the Democratic positioning on them was just as motivated by the election. The only difference is Jan 6th protested against POWER and the BLM riots on behalf of power against the populace. Thats the salient difference.
Dan Carlin is nowhere near center right. Or even center for that matter. He's basically like a Bill Maher. Nothing center or right about either of them
Lol. My friend, I know you’re busy furiously replying to every comment you disagree with here. However, can you show some effort? Like make an argument with evidence or engage with some well thought out rebuttals? These one shot, wannabe “gotcha” replies are not it.
Well said. I have no stake in US politics or ethnic relations, so I tried to be unbiased while listening, and I also picked up on your point about ethnic relations being framed as zero sum. It is possible - and hopefully will happen - that ethnic groups do manage to find some equilibrium and peace.
I also agree that the rhetoric from either political extreme is intentionally inflammatory, comes in similar-sized doses, and should be disregarded by anyone who desires a civil society.
It seems that polarization is now taken for granted, instead of being mocked for being a ridiculous concept. If I was American I would have held my nose and voted for Trump. But I don't eat babies, burn crosses, believe that every poor person deserves it, etc. Would I have voted for him twice....maybe, but that still doesn't automatically make me the enemy of a Biden voter. If we just concede that differences are vast and irreconcilable, then we will be proven correct. This forum, so far, has been a place of civility, and I'm happy to see some dissenting and critical views expressed. Thanks for your comment.
Thank you for the reply! Speaking of zero sum, to your point, it seems in the US that political differences, at least for the most vocal, are increasingly viewed in those terms. No rules. It is all or nothing, because the other side whishes to destroy us so we need to destroy them first. It's toxic and it is directly fed by the media structure I outlined above. It's one more thing eroding our political system and all its norms and boundaries. I just have no idea how it can be fixed. Especially since it hardly our only issue. Again though, thanks for the reply.
To me, the immigration thing was useful to show some of why the BLM movement was happening now. I agree with a lot of the spirit of the movement and think that young black men are often treated unfairly by the police. As bad as that is, my understanding is that it was worse 10 or 20 years ago. Further, more black people seem to be doing well in our society now than ever before. The first half of the episode answered part of the question of why BLM protests were big in 2020 and not 2010 or 2000.
The Jan 6 riot at the capital, and 100 day seige of the capital have really just one fundamental difference. One was in support of the democrat party, the other was opposed.
That's the only real difference.
That being the case, can you give a good example of the other side doing the same thing?
The democrat party has always done things this way. They used to wear white hoods and carry burning crosses to intimidate and terrorize. Now it's black clothes and BLM signs. Same party. Same playbook.
This was a tough listen. And I mean that because I knew fuck all about the story and generally take a ‘head in the sand’ approach to US politics/news seen as I live in a client state of the empire. The whole situation makes me feel sad, angry and hopeless. You delivered this incredibly well and I’m glad you did, finally someone with some balls that’s not your typical political commentator ghoul. How did we get here and where do we go?
I don’t think it’s a “process” as much as it is a response habit with deep roots in the last monarchal system standing. Perceived crisis tends to reduce people and organizations to their lowest adequate competency - the discrepancy from the perceived norm drives information suppression and narrative “management,” even to the point of outright lying. I don’t see it as “good” or “bad” - I see it as unskillful and ineffective—just my opinion.
I'm finding that every story I read about a topic I actually know and understand is wrong or deliberately distorted - this was true of almost all of the media coverage of the riots in Portland last summer - so I assume the rest is of a similarly low quality.
I thought I was informed. But I learned some things I didn't know. For example....I thought he had transferred the gun across state lines. But apparently that was a lie form the corporate press that I didn't catch.
It was helpful to remember the time. The lies put out by the press and politicians that literally torched the city of Kanosha. And many other cities at the time.
I am glad you put this out. I found it helpful for me in having a grounded understanding for my feelings on this.
But...I am at a loss for how to proceed. When the powers that be, the trusted institutions, the elected officials, the corporate press and media, the tech-media...all want to tell lies and sacrifice children to the gods of the political ideology. What is the way forward?
Get right with God. Move out of big cities to medium size and small towns (places with strong community, away from BLM/Antifa/Marxist terrorists). Identify local politicians (either party) with strong commitment to the Constitution – not just words but their records – and get them into statehouses, school boards, and other municipal civic institutions. We may need to trigger a Convention (needs 34 states) at some point soon. Invest in decentralized technology: communications, finance, health, education. Either fund them or build them. Learn some basic trade skills (electrical, lot gardening, woodshop, plumbing, HVAC) so you can help yourself, your family, your neighbors in a pinch. Learn how to use firearms and arm yourself. Finally, practice joy, love, and gratitude as often and consistently as possible.
Totally agree! Good points there. I never vote along party lines, much better to make a call based on their track record and what their platforms are, if this is hard to work out, I'll try to meet them out in public to get a sense of who they are.
Plus, paying things forward and helping build a strong community is really important.
These are good recommendations. But they assume a tragedy in the cities, and a crumbling of civilization. I would prefer a path that did not include this. But it's hard to visualize that path given the current forces in our society.
When we have powerful institutions that benefit and profit from chaos, then we have a deep rooted problem. And unfortunately, that is the case.
Then again, if I look to the past there were often duels in political campaigns. So I guess we have made some progress.
They do assume a crumbling of civilization, but probably not unwarranted. I live in a decent sized city, and the amount of social pressure to ignore facts and go with the flow of the "woke" culture is making it difficult to stay in the city I was born in and thought I would retire. It does feel as though a type of Civil War attitude is forming between the cities and the rest of the nation.
Also, this episode reminded me why I devoured every Martyrmade episode and couldn't get my debit card out fast enough when you went full-time.
History isn't about events, it's about *people* and they're always in the foreground in your work. It's the context you provide from all sides that makes your content so unique and interesting. Very well done at establishing the scene.
"History isn't about events, it's about *people* and they're always in the foreground in your work. It's the context you provide from all sides that makes your content so unique and interesting. Very well done at establishing the scene."
To add to that...
I was at one time interested in pursuing history on the college path, until I realized the ideologies had made their way into it as well, working to demonize people we once called heroes and to minimalize the accomplishments of those who did something great. People that I looked up to. They would use it under the cover of, "focusing the attention on the common man or people!" It never felt that way though, it just looked more like what you see CRT wants to focus on, demonizing virtue.
Darryl when you do the history of the people, it comes off legit. It feels like you actually learned about them or were once in their circle. Hell you even shed tears for them as I've learned many episodes in to God's Socialist. You make me want to hear history from the common man, unlike the elites of Ivy leagues changing the game to support their ideology. You make me enjoy history again.
I never even knew Martin Luther King Jr. said, "My dream has become a nightmare."
Fantastic analysis. The institutions are crumbling when we are no longer concerned about facts, but more concerned about whether or not the jury is going to be threatened for their decision. We are approaching third world status.
Also, thank you for saying something about Dan Carlin. He is out of mind on the J6 take. A bunch of boomers on a tour of the capital vs. a state sanctioned goon squad burning down cities for months. Yes, they were state sanctioned if the entity that has a monopoly on security refuses to secure anything.
The corporate media and elements of the left were begging for something like the Rittenhouse incident to happen. They invite the conflict. God forbid the people actually figure out who has/is destroyed/ing America. Criminal foreign policy, the establishment of a security state, the erosion of the bill of rights, and the destruction of the US dollar are all direct or indirect results of this regime’s (not D’s or R’s, but the current elites that have pushed policy for the last 30 years) agenda. The problem for them with the Rittenhouse incident is that he handled himself so well in that situation it will be extremely difficult to sacrifice him at their alter.
I always felt that this trial is a demoralization strategy. No prosecutor should go that hard and so obviously lying. I've been disgusted by the entire framing.
Precisely this. The trial isn't about putting Rittenhouse in jail (although I'm sure they'd love it if they could), but to discourage any potential future Rittenhouses when the next round of riots go off. Don't want anybody getting any ideas about taking a stand against our political violence.
I can't remember where the article was from, but they were asking some questions that made a good point that kind of dovetails with this. Why was the FBI flying a drone that captured the Rittenhouse footage? Think about that for a minute. They either had one drone right at that exact spot in Kenosha, or there were multiple drones covering the entire city. Regardless, what was the goal? If it was a single drone on that exact spot, were they trying to give intel to on the ground assets that were instigating? Were they supporting assets that were investigating rioters? Were they blanketing the entire city trying to preserve data in order to prosecute Rittenhouse types that fought back to discourage future resistance? Keep in mind, as far as I'm aware he's the only person being charged with a crime despite all that FBI drone video. Do let me know if I'm wrong about that, but if I'm not...well, that's weird, isn't it?
I can’t put into words eloquent enough to describe my appreciation for this take. It’s like hearing my own soul speak. I have the same sympathy for actual poor black people. I am a child of immigrants both white and Hispanic that had nothing to do with racism and hardship blacks in this country faced. I have Black, White, and Latino direct family members. My family for two generations has sacrificed blood, sweat, and souls to this country and flag. Seeing people manipulate these communities makes us sick, seeing the lies these people both spin and believe is alarming to my family as a whole. I don’t recognize the country I gave my legs too, the country my brother died for, the country my father came too and then spent a year in a coma as a result of defending. This manipulative political crap is a detriment to everyone and people are to blind or angry to see it. I fear peoples politics will make them ignore the truth you bared here, the scariest part is they will not realize they are being tricked into cheering on the destruction of their own lives and homes. This is like lung cancer, it will not be malignant, it will be terminal, and they can’t stop smoking, because they naively think it relieves their guilt.
Sorry for my rant, I appreciate you, and your contribution to our country as a voice of reason. People like you are the kemo therapy this country needs.
"We have a system in place. We have institutions in place. And if you feel that those institutions have failed so badly or become so unsalvageable that you have no choice, you have the right or the duty to act outside the boundaries of the system? Fine. Invoke the right of revolution, but understand that you have placed yourself outside the rules of the game, and expect to have the full and unbridled force of the system brought against you. That's how it works."
-Darryl, in this episode
If Rittenhouse is convicted then the institutions are unsalvageable.
They were. Darryl talked about it in this episode. The "Riot Kitchen" who drove weapons and helmets from the Pacific Northwest all the way to Kenosha. One of many examples of groups who received funding from what is, in essence, the state. Hundreds of millions of dollars being funneled from tax-exempt companies into the hands of "activists" tells you everything you need to know about who is a part of the system and who isn't.
The fact that the spineless snake of a governor Tony Evers refused the request for the national guard, siding with out of town rioters instead of the people of Kenosha who he is supposed to represent.
There will martyrs in this struggle. Keep your head down - not necessarily until it's time for full revolution - but until you're ready to be martyr.
One way to answer this question is to suppose you were teaching a class to some high schoolers about this topic. Alright, well, the entire orientation point of this case is self-defense.
What is self-defense? What are the causes that oblige one to defend oneself in society? What are the means by which someone is right to defend himself?
Specifically, a social contract between a government and it citizens requires that citizens follow the government's law. This includes not being violent, killing people, destroying property, etc. However, this is only valid AS LONG AS the government holds up its end of the bargain and enforces the ability of the citizens to live secure in their person and property.
1) Cause: What happens when the government not only fails to protect these rights (e.g., refusing help from National Guard in anticipation of a riot), but, in fact, encourages violence and destruction (e.g., a Vice President says "things should continue to burn")? What is the line at which one can clearly (i.e., without a reasonable doubt) determine: my government has not upheld its end of the pact, so it's my job to do it in their stead?
2) Scope: Assuming there is just cause, how far does does it extend? Clearly, you should be able to defend your own household and property? What about your neighbors'? What about if your neighbor doesn't specifically ask you to? What about buildings 30 miles away? What if you have friends and businesses you care about in those areas? Is is different if someone seeks to be in a situation in which they know rioting is abound versus if they just happen to find myself in an onslaught all of a sudden?
3) Means: Assume you've established just cause and appropriate scope for self-defense as above. What are considered reasonable means to follow through on protecting oneself? What precedent is set by incentivizing a 17-year-old to possess an AR15 in a riot? What precedent is set by finding him guilty of a crime for the same possession?
The jury's determination will give some definitive answers to all of these questions.
I grew up in the poorest part of Seattle. Fortunately, I had married parents with very good jobs. Your point about not caring about bettering life in the hood, but rather pushing a narrative that says the goal is escaping is spot on. The message kids hear from schools, local orgs, etc., is aspire to leave the community. I did almost immediately.
The only push against this now is due to gentrification. This has everyone waking up to the fact the nice bar that just went into the neighborhood isn't for them, it's for the folks who are going to buy their house from their landlord.
Yeah gentrification is the great ironic exception to this, have friends in a part of West Philadelphia (not the part from the Fresh Prince song, that's still ghetto) thats been gentrified, and they feel like they got kicked out of their own neighborhood except they're still there. The nice new stuff is priced too high for working class families, its mostly stuff for hipster white people, the schools still suck and theres still crime just the new arrivals skirt it by bussing their kids to charter schools and isolating from the existing community. I'm white, friends are black, we're the same socio economic class, upper working to lower middle but we know how to hustle, and the black people all get it, they've been getting screwed like this forever. I'm like "hey look at that nice coffee shop", she's like "yeah thats not for us", it would be funny if not so sad and awful.
Amazing how fast it happens too. Had friends living in Fishtown just a few years back and it was a very young professional/hipster scene. I was like, “Wait, is this the same Fishtown Charles Murray was writing about?”
I know right? I lived on E Passyunk in the early 00's when it was still old school Italian with some Latinos mixed in, great working class neighborhood with all the old delis and clothing stores. Went back a few months ago and its all gone.
Public housing and other policy, as well as street level violence, keep the property values in the hood down. I met an old black dude in Oakland once, thankful for all the gentrification because he sold his falling apart home for over a million dollars. That being said, there is something lost by historic neighborhoods being uprooted; but that was equally as horrible when it was called WHITE FLIGHT and places like Brooklyn turned from Italian and Jewish neighborhoods to black ones, largely because of public housing policy.
Where my family was from for 3 generations after immigrating to NYC from Europe it is now an all black neighborhood. My Grandmother was the last old white lady in her building. Redlining and other "systemically racist" laws were mostly about newly arrived immigrants protecting their communities from "outsiders."
Reply to you and Mark. I had an upbringing that was about as far from what you describe as possible, but it still was a very.....gritty place. I now live in another small city that is rapidly growing, and now seemingly immune to mill shutdowns and other town-killers. Both places have been "discovered" by tourists and zoomers and are being gentrified in real time. From what I can see in this tiny example is that the gentrification is not by or for long-term residents. I know, I know, progress, but I kind of like the grit, it's comforting to me, and certainly feels more real. If gentrification isn't helping get folks out of it, but just makes the mayor look good, then I say fuck it. Take your shiny money to an already shiny shit hole.
Yes Aaron I agree, gentrification does nothing to alleviate underlying problems, it just puts a fake shiny facade over them. The overall community benefits a little with a general improvement in social infrastructure, but the (mostly black) people there get it, its not really for them.
I appreciate how you don’t discount the historical and current realities faced by black Americans, while plainly laying out the facts of last summer that tragically led to this situation. Don’t get me wrong, the real perps played stupid games and won stupid prizes, but it’s tragic that Rittenhouse ever had to be faced with this situation. The ruling class + media in this country is officially pure evil.
I really enjoyed this one. It left me with a knot in my stomach for the complete railroading of a kid who easily could have been me, or someone I know if put in that situation. I respect Dan Carlin a lot for his over all body of work, but it’s no secret he leans left. I think you were right to point out that he came out with a podcast vehemently against the capital riots, but not a word about the worst riots in 50 years, perpetrated by people who happen to align more with his ideology. The 2 scenarios are not even remotely comparable, especially if you look at the damage done.
This is by far the most worthwhile podcast subscription I have. I think I can speak for everyone when I say, I feel I have already gotten my money’s worth.
I’m going to go on Dan’s defense here and say that I agree with him that the Capitol riot was on a different level than the BLM riots. The BLM riots were a failure of law enforcement, egged on by politicians and the media that couldn’t seem to distinguish between historic systemic racism and lawless destruction that mostly damaged the very people they *claim* to care about. Its actually pretty easy to fix and stop, too. Call out the national guard, give law enforcement the support of the politicians, and it stops in a day or two.
The Capitol riot was an attack on democracy. Yes they were a bunch of disorganized goons that should probably be pitied rather than prosecuted. And no they didn’t really damage anything. But look at the precedent they set! If you don’t like an election, now it’s ok to go to the Capitol and try to force a different result.
Next time, the riot won’t be like this one. We have opened Pandora’s box.
The logical conclusion to this, is widespread civil war. The BLM riots never had that potential.
For what it’s worth politically I’m probably more in line with Dan than Daryl, but significantly more libertarian. But I do greatly appreciate what Daryl says.
Capitol Riot and BLM riots were both encouraged and mishandled by our supposed leaders. Not cool on either front. From the perspective of leadership, both were a failure and betrayal.
My god you're still parroting that garbage?
"Attack on democracy"?
Both riots happened to influence the outcome of the election. Both had the same objective.
Please cut the crap on pretending like there was a difference
Not at all correct or fair to claim equivalency between the two. Of course there’s a huge difference
Absolutely correct and fair.
There is no fundamental difference whatsoever. Both riots had the same objective, to influence political directions.
The only superficial difference, is that one set of riots and violence was on behalf of the democrat party, and one was opposed.
That's the only reason it's framed differently and the only reason you claim it's not fair to compare them
I kind of agree. I think it would be silly of them to think that anything they actually did would change the election at all. Maybe some of them thought it might but probably very few. This isn't the 1300s anymore. Occupying a building doesn't mean you're the new government. If they had stayed longer it would probably have ended up like waco. But if you're going to riot and protest the government I can't think of any better place to do it. It's better than destroying your own community. It wouldnt hurt for those politicians in Washington to have just a little bit of fear of the American people.
I'm sure I'll have absolutely no one agree with me on this as I do tend to have a bit of an anarchist streak. What's that quote? "if the people fear the government, you have tyranny. If the government fears the people, you have liberty". Something like that. I think that's spot on. They're not affraid to be corrupt because they have absolutely no accountability. Ok that's all 😀
Name one government that has existed in fear of the people it governs...
Name one that didn't.
Ultimately, every government exists only by the consent of the governed. No consent, no government.
The question is just to what degree.
Agreed 1000%. I'm referring to the quote above. The government having consent, whether active or passive is different than the government living in fear of the people. Our government has not feared the people in my lifetime.
Any government founded on revolution fears the next one. The Bolshevists were shitting their pants about the prospect, to the point they preemptively genocides anybody with slightly rebellious tendencies.
Yeah, I agree with this. The BLM rioters weren't the problem, they did what they were allowed to get away with when no one cracked down on them. The guilty party there was the politicians reigning in the police and the media for apologizing for rioting and lying about what was happening.
Make this public, Darryl. We need to share this with our friends and family who need to see this side of the story
OK
Mr Cooper thank you for releasing this to the public! This is the best summary of not only the Rittenhouse trial but what we were seeing play out in the summer of 2020. Thank you for this podcast.
Absolutely thank you Darryl!!!!
Chad Move!
I will be so glad for this to be shareable publicly. Right off the bat I want my daughters to hear it. You just make the case so much better than I am capable of doing it.
Thank you!
If you release this episode now it will turn off your left-wing audience.
That’s not necessarily true. It was eye opening for me. And my politics are pretty closely aligned with Dan Carlin. Which is pretty smack dab in the center. To characterize Carlin as leftist because he did an episode on the capitol riots and not on the 2020 BLM insanity is, to me, an overreach. I listen to Darryl because his research is excellent and his analysis is based on solid logic. I prefer my podcasts to live in this realm, regardless of the presenter’s politics.
I don't think so. I am actually planning to share this with my most progressive friend because I think it pretty fairly summarizes the issue and shows how blatantly ridiculous it has become.
I want to do the same but once he gets into the antifa commentary he loses his credibility to the left. I'm pretty far left and so is everyone I know. Comes with being Canadian. I'd love to share his excellent commentary to show how partisan the trial has become but then he gets into antifa stuff that sounds pretty sketchy, then making it partisan again. I'm being really critical of a one off, flash episode because that's the critique he will face if he released publicly. I like these rant episodes being between us subscribers.
I'm also a Canuckian (Victoria, BC) and there is a fair amount of criticism of antifa here, probably because we are closer to Portland and Seattle and can relate more to the crap that was going on there.
Could see Ontario people being more turned off by criticism of antifa since I've noticed the leftists there align pretty hard with the Democrats.
I think that's true but it's not being critical of antifa I'm concerned about. It's some of the things he claims about them that really sound like right wing bs. For example I seriously doubt antifa was standing at the protests handing out 20's and 100's to people to protest. It makes no sense and sounds so sleazy. If you give someone a hundred bucks to protest then most reasonable people will walk in the general direction of the protest then go home. A fool parted from their money. Personally, I would go back for seconds and thirds because taking money from sleazy people like that wouldn't bother me. Darryl doesn't have the time to fully fact check episodes like this and any flaw will cause left wing people to dismiss him as a right wing nut. Though someone mentioned he could release it seperate from the MM podcast which seems reasonable
I disagree, what if the facts turn them on, challenges them to think, do research, etc. With all due respect, fear is not a virtue. Who wants to live in a world where one has to worry about pleasing everyone? It is healthy to agree to disagree.
Maybe some, but definitely not all. I know a large number of lefties who've been captured by the CNN-Youtube-NYT bubble, but they know that the Regime (in all its works) is increasingly not passing the sniff test. Already a couple have broken free, and this podcast may unleash even more.
I consider myself left of Daryl, yet this was an eye opener. I will say that the reasoning presented here would be hard to present, in turn, to some people in my life that are on the “unwoke” left. Daryl can do it. I can’t.
I mean, I agreed with just about everything Darryl said in this episode, but I feel that putting it out there in the public would not be as revelatory as we might hope. When I talk with my left-leaning family members (who I love! who mean well!), they simply do not agree that rioting was a big problem in 2020, or Antifa, or any of that. And why would they? Unless you spent that summer looking at videos on social media or tracking right-leaning news sources, there was a sort of information vacuum that leads us now to occupy different mental realities.
Yeah, I'm in a very blue place with very good friends and family in this bubble who never said much about the riots, and I always assumed they were perfectly aware but it was simply uncomfortable to their politics. I made the mistake of bringing this up once when one of these friends went apeshit over 1/6 and demanded I answer for my support of Trump (which they assumed and I never mentioned). I asked to know why they had never said a single solitary word about the better part of a year of riots with dozens of deaths and billions of dollars in damage and...wow. The response confirmed that we are operating in different realities.
It's super frustrating. I wasn't a Trump supporter, and the first whiff I had of Antifa was when I went to the anti-Trump rally the weekend after he was elected. There was a festive atmosphere in downtown Phoenix, basic Starbucks moms pushing strollers around. I was myself in this camp, and went with my wife and kid. But in the midst of this there was a bunch of black-clothed weirdos marching in formation with weapons, who I would later figure out were part of the local Antifa group. It was just wild to me that for months when you could go on Twitter every night and see the new videos of fires etc. from downtown Portland, and then I'd visit Facebook and see all my nice suburban associates arguing sharing memes about how Antifa doesn't exist. It has all just been very very weird.
The Andy Ngo videos were a huge red pill. Even if that's not what you're referring to, it's basically the same stuff. I'd reluctantly click over every night and just be floored by what I was seeing in Portland. I sent the link to a friend once and he tried to just send me stuff debunking Andy Ngo and accusing him of this or that. It's liked dude, I'm sending you raw video...I don't give a damn about the account. You're sending me high school snark as a rebuttal. These people won't even trust their own eyes.
Yes, I'm sure we were watching the same videos. What made me crazy was when I'd have conversations with people who would say things like, "Well, I'd rather look at NPR than just social media, because then it's gone through some level of fact-checking," but the very problem was that much of the information that was being documented every evening was not being presented in a neutral tone, and it was pretty questionable whether it was being independently checked either. I was reading Twitter, and the NPR reporters were reading Twitter, and then I was having conversations with people who just wanted to only take as fact those events that the NPR reporters had elected to pass on to their listeners.
Yep, when the gate keepers of knowledge aren't on your side it's maddening. Reality isn't that difficult to figure out if you're still sane. I recently had the insight that there are really two types of people: those with goals and those with principles. The people with principles often don't even realize they have principles or don't have them consciously in mind, but they're there regardless. Those with goals but not principles will always be "the ends justify the means" types. This seems to be an eternal war between the two cognitions. If you only have goals, there's really no level of depravity or delusion or gaslighting you won't sink to in order to achieve some end. Or maybe I'm just drinking too much gin lately.
I have been censoring myself for months for this very reason, but I've started to speak up. I think the self-censorship is part of the playbook. That, and the demoralization that comes from hearing, over and over again, that what you're seeing with your own eyes is not happening. But I'm just dipping my toe into the water of calmly pushing back on the dominant narrative, because it's not easy. To be frank, when you start talking about antifa and political violence, you get a lot of nod-and-smile subject changes or awkward silences. Still, it just doesn't seem right to let all the BS go unchallenged.
You nailed it. Speak up. Speak boldly the truth
This is exactly why it should be public. The more normies that get exposed to truth the better. It is the only way out.
+1 to this suggestion. Many people who are too fare gone into the Matrix may resort to hatred and deflection after hearing your words. They may never come around. But there are plenty, plenty more who will hear what you are saying and it will be their starting point toward the light.
I second this, especially with the trial in the spotlight now, may gain you some new listeners. Anyone turned off by this might not be a big fan of your material anyway.
The official narrative is that Kyle is a mass murdering white supremacist and everyone who publicly supports him will be tarred with that. Cops lost their job for “anonymously” contributing to the gofundme when that was released.
Everything Darryl said in this podcast was public knowledge at the time. While my mom may not have known it, I can’t imagine every journalist, activist, or person actually firing someone for supporting KR didn’t.
They may not have had it laid out in such a clean and clear manner for them. This podcast was beautiful. But those acting on this knew the information. Look at the CNN or yahoo news headlines about the judge and think about it Darryl can afford to be branded as an irredeemable bigot.
I agree with her
Fucking masterpiece my friend. I wasn’t going to bother listening due to topical overload, but damn, you turned this into something magical.
Daryl has a way of conveying my thoughts and theories far better than I ever could. I have learned so much from this guy
Absolutely amazing how he takes so many disparate threads and ties them all together. His podcasts completely shifted the way I view historical and current events.
He brings a human psychology perspective to events and history that is unique and that he does an extraordinary job melding with the topic.
Yes, the psychological component is what’s missing in most historical narratives. Darryl weaves it in nicely.
The left losing their shit over the death of a white pedophile, is peak 21st century.
My take is slightly more generous generous yours but also very sad. Very few know he is a pedophile. The lefties against Rittenhouse are mostly young and extremely ignorant and have strong opinions based on headlines from articles they didn't bother reading. Many think he killed at least one black person so that should tell you something.
It's intense that the Democraric establishment bases their strategy around lies that they just hope most of their supporters are too lazy to ever read the Wikipedia article regarding.
The lefties who do bother reading past the headline are probably just too afraid of losing their social circle to say that the whole thing is nonsense.
I fear many agree with every significant fact in the podcast and want Rittenhouse to hang.
It’s really disheartening to see so many people who think someone should get away with murder because it agrees with their politics. Why should a 17 year old criminal, he did illegally acquire an assault rifle, not face any repercussions for taking said illegally acquired weapon into public with the intent of using against a human when he had no legal right to do so, no training in law enforcement just a big dose of vigilante bravado.
There’s lots of talk through threads of the left only reading headlines, it’s not only the left that do that, plenty of the right also only read headlines, and also only surround themselves with right wing articles and politics, the right wing poster boy Joe Rohan just got triggered by a satirical news article in Australia, while right wing American broadcasters call for an invasion of Australia to ‘free us’…… You truly have no idea
It's pretty clear you didn't really listen to the podcast, or filtered out the parts you didn't want to hear.
Actually, he did not illegally acquire the gun. It was given to him by a friend. In many states in the US, a 17 year old can use a gun, just not purchase said weapon. That being said, if I were Kyle's parent, I would have kicked his butt for going near a riot, but he was not legally in the wrong based on Wisconsin law.
I couldn't agree more, you hit some major points in a very succinct way!
Do they really care though? I feel like all they care about is the narrative to fit their agenda - racism, white supremacy, domestic terrorists, control, etc. Never let a crisis go to waste and if there isn’t one - create one.
So I have some major disagreements with what you said. Not in this being clear self defense (it was), but in your framing of almost everything.
1) We are an increasingly polarized, “sick society” but it is not due to the machinations of some “regime” favoring one side. All I have to do counter your narrative about how all the institutions have it out for conservatives is to list the numerous powerful interests, corporate figures, religious institutions, and media outlets that regularly back Republican and conservative political efforts and campaigns.
This disinformation isn’t a product of conspiracy. For Media outlets, it’s a problem of an increasingly perverse sales incentives in an ever more crowded market combined with increasingly insular media consumption from an ever more polarized populace. They need clicks to survive and they need to be first to cover a story. That’s why Blake was sold as just another example of a innocent black man being randomly gunned down before a single bit of info was discovered. There was a convenient and long standing narrative that was easy to sell to their political audiences. That’s also why Rittenhouse was sold in headlines as right wing militia nut.
Politicized left wingers have a narrative about cops and black people. They see a headline about Rittenhouse killing protestors, and in some cases, just assume it’s basically a Nazi killing black civil rights protestors.
This isn’t a left wing phenomenon. You need only look to the insane narrative around tump and elections as a counter example. Not to mention covid, our handling of which continues to suffer from right wing disinformation campaigns (inarguably, this has killed far more than than the 20-30 in the 2020 riots). It’s clear that this polarizing disinformation is occurring across the political spectrum. And not all problems are stemming from on wing.
A few other things.
2) Do you have more info on Antifa I can read up on? Interested to know where you got that info from.
3) the immigration bit at the beginning seemed like an non sequitor and your zero sum view of relations between ethnic groups seemed pretty damn strange. Especially since ethnicity is hardly the only identity we organize around in this country.
4) Finally, your accusation about carlin can be thrown right back at you. Where was your emergency podcast about Jan 6? Carlin can make a credible argument that Jan 6 riots had a far higher stakes (a bunch of rubes wanted to turn over the certification of a presidential election) than one courthouse in Portland. Which is why he made his podcast. Not really understanding why you were upset with him for not covering Portland.
Excellent comment, agree 100%. I had the same question about Antifa. Cooper is typically so scrupulous about defining and explaining all sides of a controversy, but I felt he threw in Antifa without explaining how he knows this to be true. I’m not saying it’s not true-I’m simply saying he did not provide evidence. If he has it, I want to see it. I would love for him to dedicate an entire podcast to Antifa.
I also felt he gave a pass to KR for obtaining a gun illegally and underage. If what he hoped to achieve demanded carrying a weapon, then he should’ve stuck to helping in a capacity that didn’t require a gun, or just sat out altogether.
HE DID NOT OBTAIN THE GUN ILLEGALLY. Stop the BS.
I mean giving someone the money to purchase you a weapon that you aren’t legally allowed to purchase doesn’t exactly scream legal. But I guess it really just depends if you are a letter of the law or spirit of the law person
While evidence would be cool, stuff like that seems challenging for current events. Let’s say 80 of 100 arrested people have records like he described:
Does that mean a big fraction of the antifa types are like that or only of the ones who got arrested?
If you say riot violence was instigated by police agent provocateurs, I bet there were examples of that in 2020.
When he says Antifa leaders hand out cash to start shit, I bet he’s right.
I doubt any of that becomes public record for a while and we may never know what the balance of shit starting was in that crazy summer. If he has a real source of information, he probably can’t reveal it yet.
Frankly, if you’re unable to cite sources for claim, even vaguely, you probably shouldn’t make the claim.
You've obviously never been to an antifa event.
What Darryl Cooper said is no secret.
There were provocateurs in both side's riots.
I don't believe he ever said that disinformation is an entirely left wing phenomenon. If you want his take on the election stuff he did a bunch of tweets about it a while back. And I think the issue with Carlin's stance is that many people see the good people doing destruction as acceptable and the bad people doing destruction as a horrible threat to mankind. There's a bias there, and Carlin tries to be non partisan but his left wing programming comes out. I think it's pretty obvious that the issue here is that only one side has any accountability, even though the other side caused far more damage, death, and loss of livelihood.
Carlin, at least by my estimate, has always been center right. Not exactly liberal. Did Dan ever comment on the protests and riots of 2020? I don't think he did. And if that's the case, his silence on that topic does not mean he would approve of that sort of destruction. I think the central reason Dan made an emergency episode after J6 was because he (rightly in my mind) saw a distinction between a riot which burns down local gas stations or stores, and one which sought to disrupt a certification of one of our national elections. A riot which only happened because a president and his circle of followers insisted for months (without any evidence) that our political system was rigged. That his loss in that election was impossible. The stakes are just different in these two cases. At least that's how I see it.
You saying the stakes are different indicates that an insurrection could have ever been successful. The only reason anything ever happened that was newsworthy was because they were let in.
And I didn't say that Carlin is a liberal, he just has liberal programming. A lot of people on the right do. I was listening to Jonah Goldberg (old school neocon) talk about the Rittenhouse trial and before he said "but it was clearly self defense" he had to throw in all his liberal misinformation priors about how he shouldn't have been there in the first place and he shouldn't have crossed state lines with a fully semi-automatic ar-15. People drink this Kool aid on all sides of the aisle. And you don't hear very many liberals repeating right wing talking points. Might be a tangent but whatever.
The stakes are different not because they could have succeeded in overturning the election that day. The stakes are different both because the lives of elected officials were threatened because of a fraudulent conspiracy theory (pushed by a president), and because this tact GOP politicians are starting to take following trump (i/e every election they lose is rigged) is dangerous. It erodes the legitimacy and functionality of our system. We, as a country, have had riots in throughout our history and we have recovered. What is far less common is mainstream political figures casting doubt on our elections for base political and financial gain. If this continues, its going to get very ugly.
On Rittenhouse, I honestly don't see what's wrong with Dan or Goldberg thinking a 17 year old should not have been there. He shouldn't have been. No shortage of experienced adults could have taken his place. Fair point on the "crossed state lines with a weapon" stuff though. It's a point that is both inaccurate (he did not cross state lines with that weapon) and irrelevant (he lived 15 minutes away and worked in Kenosha).
People did not start thinking elections were rigged because of Trump. People called shenanigans on Bush 2 both times. As far as the holy legitimacy of our electoral process, look up the Diebold backdoor hack.
Horsehocky.
Where else should Kyle Rittenhouse have been? Playing video games?
Dan is certainly not center-right. I never thought of 'left' and 'right' as absolute terms, but it's something that always describes the contemporary state of affairs. Holding the same view as left wingers did in the 90's can put you on the right side of the spectrum in 2021. With that in mind, Dan would rather qualify as rather left-wing. Whenever Dan put his foot down (which wasn't very often, he is somewhat risk-averse) he always took positions that were more in line with the Democratic Party's agenda. Occasionally I even agreed with him, despite being fairly reactionary, e.g. when he was discussing the American healthcare system in one of his Common Sense episodes. But he is not on the right, that's for certain.
The BLM riots were also about changing the election, those riots just as political, and the Democratic positioning on them was just as motivated by the election. The only difference is Jan 6th protested against POWER and the BLM riots on behalf of power against the populace. Thats the salient difference.
Exactly.
Dan Carlin is nowhere near center right. Or even center for that matter. He's basically like a Bill Maher. Nothing center or right about either of them
Lol. My friend, I know you’re busy furiously replying to every comment you disagree with here. However, can you show some effort? Like make an argument with evidence or engage with some well thought out rebuttals? These one shot, wannabe “gotcha” replies are not it.
If you've listened to Dan Carlin, and Bill Maher you'd know they have very closely aligned viewpoints. Bill Maher proudly calls himself a liberal.
Dan Carlin is right with Bill Maher. Neither is right or center. Both are typical left leaning propoganda pushers.
Well said. I have no stake in US politics or ethnic relations, so I tried to be unbiased while listening, and I also picked up on your point about ethnic relations being framed as zero sum. It is possible - and hopefully will happen - that ethnic groups do manage to find some equilibrium and peace.
I also agree that the rhetoric from either political extreme is intentionally inflammatory, comes in similar-sized doses, and should be disregarded by anyone who desires a civil society.
It seems that polarization is now taken for granted, instead of being mocked for being a ridiculous concept. If I was American I would have held my nose and voted for Trump. But I don't eat babies, burn crosses, believe that every poor person deserves it, etc. Would I have voted for him twice....maybe, but that still doesn't automatically make me the enemy of a Biden voter. If we just concede that differences are vast and irreconcilable, then we will be proven correct. This forum, so far, has been a place of civility, and I'm happy to see some dissenting and critical views expressed. Thanks for your comment.
Thank you for the reply! Speaking of zero sum, to your point, it seems in the US that political differences, at least for the most vocal, are increasingly viewed in those terms. No rules. It is all or nothing, because the other side whishes to destroy us so we need to destroy them first. It's toxic and it is directly fed by the media structure I outlined above. It's one more thing eroding our political system and all its norms and boundaries. I just have no idea how it can be fixed. Especially since it hardly our only issue. Again though, thanks for the reply.
To me, the immigration thing was useful to show some of why the BLM movement was happening now. I agree with a lot of the spirit of the movement and think that young black men are often treated unfairly by the police. As bad as that is, my understanding is that it was worse 10 or 20 years ago. Further, more black people seem to be doing well in our society now than ever before. The first half of the episode answered part of the question of why BLM protests were big in 2020 and not 2010 or 2000.
Another democrat party apologist.
Great.
Then put it up to common sense.
The Jan 6 riot at the capital, and 100 day seige of the capital have really just one fundamental difference. One was in support of the democrat party, the other was opposed.
That's the only real difference.
That being the case, can you give a good example of the other side doing the same thing?
The democrat party has always done things this way. They used to wear white hoods and carry burning crosses to intimidate and terrorize. Now it's black clothes and BLM signs. Same party. Same playbook.
This was a tough listen. And I mean that because I knew fuck all about the story and generally take a ‘head in the sand’ approach to US politics/news seen as I live in a client state of the empire. The whole situation makes me feel sad, angry and hopeless. You delivered this incredibly well and I’m glad you did, finally someone with some balls that’s not your typical political commentator ghoul. How did we get here and where do we go?
How to say you are Australian without saying you are Australian.
Actually Ireland my friend
Ta bron orm, cousin. I watched Ireland’s backslide into dependant vassal state mentality and it was so soul-crushing that I had to stop looking.
Go raibhe mile. When do you think that process started? I can't identify it. But also don't see it as completely negative if I'm honest
I don’t think it’s a “process” as much as it is a response habit with deep roots in the last monarchal system standing. Perceived crisis tends to reduce people and organizations to their lowest adequate competency - the discrepancy from the perceived norm drives information suppression and narrative “management,” even to the point of outright lying. I don’t see it as “good” or “bad” - I see it as unskillful and ineffective—just my opinion.
The reason I keep my head low & ears open.
If the media lies so much about this, a relatively straightforward case, imagine what else they’re lying about.
Damn near everything
I'm finding that every story I read about a topic I actually know and understand is wrong or deliberately distorted - this was true of almost all of the media coverage of the riots in Portland last summer - so I assume the rest is of a similarly low quality.
Don't have to imagine. COVID, Hunter's laptop, Epstein, etc...
Wow.
I thought I was informed. But I learned some things I didn't know. For example....I thought he had transferred the gun across state lines. But apparently that was a lie form the corporate press that I didn't catch.
It was helpful to remember the time. The lies put out by the press and politicians that literally torched the city of Kanosha. And many other cities at the time.
I am glad you put this out. I found it helpful for me in having a grounded understanding for my feelings on this.
But...I am at a loss for how to proceed. When the powers that be, the trusted institutions, the elected officials, the corporate press and media, the tech-media...all want to tell lies and sacrifice children to the gods of the political ideology. What is the way forward?
Get right with God. Move out of big cities to medium size and small towns (places with strong community, away from BLM/Antifa/Marxist terrorists). Identify local politicians (either party) with strong commitment to the Constitution – not just words but their records – and get them into statehouses, school boards, and other municipal civic institutions. We may need to trigger a Convention (needs 34 states) at some point soon. Invest in decentralized technology: communications, finance, health, education. Either fund them or build them. Learn some basic trade skills (electrical, lot gardening, woodshop, plumbing, HVAC) so you can help yourself, your family, your neighbors in a pinch. Learn how to use firearms and arm yourself. Finally, practice joy, love, and gratitude as often and consistently as possible.
Fuck God
Totally agree! Good points there. I never vote along party lines, much better to make a call based on their track record and what their platforms are, if this is hard to work out, I'll try to meet them out in public to get a sense of who they are.
Plus, paying things forward and helping build a strong community is really important.
These are good recommendations. But they assume a tragedy in the cities, and a crumbling of civilization. I would prefer a path that did not include this. But it's hard to visualize that path given the current forces in our society.
When we have powerful institutions that benefit and profit from chaos, then we have a deep rooted problem. And unfortunately, that is the case.
Then again, if I look to the past there were often duels in political campaigns. So I guess we have made some progress.
They do assume a crumbling of civilization, but probably not unwarranted. I live in a decent sized city, and the amount of social pressure to ignore facts and go with the flow of the "woke" culture is making it difficult to stay in the city I was born in and thought I would retire. It does feel as though a type of Civil War attitude is forming between the cities and the rest of the nation.
What do cities contribute at this point?
Start by refusing to support the democrat party in any way.
Also, this episode reminded me why I devoured every Martyrmade episode and couldn't get my debit card out fast enough when you went full-time.
History isn't about events, it's about *people* and they're always in the foreground in your work. It's the context you provide from all sides that makes your content so unique and interesting. Very well done at establishing the scene.
"History isn't about events, it's about *people* and they're always in the foreground in your work. It's the context you provide from all sides that makes your content so unique and interesting. Very well done at establishing the scene."
To add to that...
I was at one time interested in pursuing history on the college path, until I realized the ideologies had made their way into it as well, working to demonize people we once called heroes and to minimalize the accomplishments of those who did something great. People that I looked up to. They would use it under the cover of, "focusing the attention on the common man or people!" It never felt that way though, it just looked more like what you see CRT wants to focus on, demonizing virtue.
Darryl when you do the history of the people, it comes off legit. It feels like you actually learned about them or were once in their circle. Hell you even shed tears for them as I've learned many episodes in to God's Socialist. You make me want to hear history from the common man, unlike the elites of Ivy leagues changing the game to support their ideology. You make me enjoy history again.
I never even knew Martin Luther King Jr. said, "My dream has become a nightmare."
Fantastic analysis. The institutions are crumbling when we are no longer concerned about facts, but more concerned about whether or not the jury is going to be threatened for their decision. We are approaching third world status.
Also, thank you for saying something about Dan Carlin. He is out of mind on the J6 take. A bunch of boomers on a tour of the capital vs. a state sanctioned goon squad burning down cities for months. Yes, they were state sanctioned if the entity that has a monopoly on security refuses to secure anything.
The corporate media and elements of the left were begging for something like the Rittenhouse incident to happen. They invite the conflict. God forbid the people actually figure out who has/is destroyed/ing America. Criminal foreign policy, the establishment of a security state, the erosion of the bill of rights, and the destruction of the US dollar are all direct or indirect results of this regime’s (not D’s or R’s, but the current elites that have pushed policy for the last 30 years) agenda. The problem for them with the Rittenhouse incident is that he handled himself so well in that situation it will be extremely difficult to sacrifice him at their alter.
I always felt that this trial is a demoralization strategy. No prosecutor should go that hard and so obviously lying. I've been disgusted by the entire framing.
The media is the enemy of the people.
Precisely this. The trial isn't about putting Rittenhouse in jail (although I'm sure they'd love it if they could), but to discourage any potential future Rittenhouses when the next round of riots go off. Don't want anybody getting any ideas about taking a stand against our political violence.
I can't remember where the article was from, but they were asking some questions that made a good point that kind of dovetails with this. Why was the FBI flying a drone that captured the Rittenhouse footage? Think about that for a minute. They either had one drone right at that exact spot in Kenosha, or there were multiple drones covering the entire city. Regardless, what was the goal? If it was a single drone on that exact spot, were they trying to give intel to on the ground assets that were instigating? Were they supporting assets that were investigating rioters? Were they blanketing the entire city trying to preserve data in order to prosecute Rittenhouse types that fought back to discourage future resistance? Keep in mind, as far as I'm aware he's the only person being charged with a crime despite all that FBI drone video. Do let me know if I'm wrong about that, but if I'm not...well, that's weird, isn't it?
No we don’t want people coming to riots with guns…
We want people with guns defending us from rioters with guns.
What is the lesson we should take? I assume it is something like
1: don’t be on the wrong side of the blue team establishment or you’ll be branded a white supremacist.
2: If you defend yourself when attacked by the blue team, your life will be ruined.
And therefore
3: Restraint in that situation will not be rewarded in this life
I can’t put into words eloquent enough to describe my appreciation for this take. It’s like hearing my own soul speak. I have the same sympathy for actual poor black people. I am a child of immigrants both white and Hispanic that had nothing to do with racism and hardship blacks in this country faced. I have Black, White, and Latino direct family members. My family for two generations has sacrificed blood, sweat, and souls to this country and flag. Seeing people manipulate these communities makes us sick, seeing the lies these people both spin and believe is alarming to my family as a whole. I don’t recognize the country I gave my legs too, the country my brother died for, the country my father came too and then spent a year in a coma as a result of defending. This manipulative political crap is a detriment to everyone and people are to blind or angry to see it. I fear peoples politics will make them ignore the truth you bared here, the scariest part is they will not realize they are being tricked into cheering on the destruction of their own lives and homes. This is like lung cancer, it will not be malignant, it will be terminal, and they can’t stop smoking, because they naively think it relieves their guilt.
Sorry for my rant, I appreciate you, and your contribution to our country as a voice of reason. People like you are the kemo therapy this country needs.
I've been able to watch 80% of this trial. Going to cry if this kid gets convicted of anything more than the misdemeanor.
What are the lessons for us if he is?
"We have a system in place. We have institutions in place. And if you feel that those institutions have failed so badly or become so unsalvageable that you have no choice, you have the right or the duty to act outside the boundaries of the system? Fine. Invoke the right of revolution, but understand that you have placed yourself outside the rules of the game, and expect to have the full and unbridled force of the system brought against you. That's how it works."
-Darryl, in this episode
If Rittenhouse is convicted then the institutions are unsalvageable.
Seems the rioters were part of the system that night. Keep your head down unless it’s time for full revolution?
They were. Darryl talked about it in this episode. The "Riot Kitchen" who drove weapons and helmets from the Pacific Northwest all the way to Kenosha. One of many examples of groups who received funding from what is, in essence, the state. Hundreds of millions of dollars being funneled from tax-exempt companies into the hands of "activists" tells you everything you need to know about who is a part of the system and who isn't.
The fact that the spineless snake of a governor Tony Evers refused the request for the national guard, siding with out of town rioters instead of the people of Kenosha who he is supposed to represent.
There will martyrs in this struggle. Keep your head down - not necessarily until it's time for full revolution - but until you're ready to be martyr.
One way to answer this question is to suppose you were teaching a class to some high schoolers about this topic. Alright, well, the entire orientation point of this case is self-defense.
What is self-defense? What are the causes that oblige one to defend oneself in society? What are the means by which someone is right to defend himself?
Specifically, a social contract between a government and it citizens requires that citizens follow the government's law. This includes not being violent, killing people, destroying property, etc. However, this is only valid AS LONG AS the government holds up its end of the bargain and enforces the ability of the citizens to live secure in their person and property.
1) Cause: What happens when the government not only fails to protect these rights (e.g., refusing help from National Guard in anticipation of a riot), but, in fact, encourages violence and destruction (e.g., a Vice President says "things should continue to burn")? What is the line at which one can clearly (i.e., without a reasonable doubt) determine: my government has not upheld its end of the pact, so it's my job to do it in their stead?
2) Scope: Assuming there is just cause, how far does does it extend? Clearly, you should be able to defend your own household and property? What about your neighbors'? What about if your neighbor doesn't specifically ask you to? What about buildings 30 miles away? What if you have friends and businesses you care about in those areas? Is is different if someone seeks to be in a situation in which they know rioting is abound versus if they just happen to find myself in an onslaught all of a sudden?
3) Means: Assume you've established just cause and appropriate scope for self-defense as above. What are considered reasonable means to follow through on protecting oneself? What precedent is set by incentivizing a 17-year-old to possess an AR15 in a riot? What precedent is set by finding him guilty of a crime for the same possession?
The jury's determination will give some definitive answers to all of these questions.
Dude, you need to make this public. This is why I said yes when you asked to cover it. Put the truth out there my friend, the people needs to know.
I second this!
I grew up in the poorest part of Seattle. Fortunately, I had married parents with very good jobs. Your point about not caring about bettering life in the hood, but rather pushing a narrative that says the goal is escaping is spot on. The message kids hear from schools, local orgs, etc., is aspire to leave the community. I did almost immediately.
The only push against this now is due to gentrification. This has everyone waking up to the fact the nice bar that just went into the neighborhood isn't for them, it's for the folks who are going to buy their house from their landlord.
Yeah gentrification is the great ironic exception to this, have friends in a part of West Philadelphia (not the part from the Fresh Prince song, that's still ghetto) thats been gentrified, and they feel like they got kicked out of their own neighborhood except they're still there. The nice new stuff is priced too high for working class families, its mostly stuff for hipster white people, the schools still suck and theres still crime just the new arrivals skirt it by bussing their kids to charter schools and isolating from the existing community. I'm white, friends are black, we're the same socio economic class, upper working to lower middle but we know how to hustle, and the black people all get it, they've been getting screwed like this forever. I'm like "hey look at that nice coffee shop", she's like "yeah thats not for us", it would be funny if not so sad and awful.
Amazing how fast it happens too. Had friends living in Fishtown just a few years back and it was a very young professional/hipster scene. I was like, “Wait, is this the same Fishtown Charles Murray was writing about?”
I know right? I lived on E Passyunk in the early 00's when it was still old school Italian with some Latinos mixed in, great working class neighborhood with all the old delis and clothing stores. Went back a few months ago and its all gone.
Public housing and other policy, as well as street level violence, keep the property values in the hood down. I met an old black dude in Oakland once, thankful for all the gentrification because he sold his falling apart home for over a million dollars. That being said, there is something lost by historic neighborhoods being uprooted; but that was equally as horrible when it was called WHITE FLIGHT and places like Brooklyn turned from Italian and Jewish neighborhoods to black ones, largely because of public housing policy.
Where my family was from for 3 generations after immigrating to NYC from Europe it is now an all black neighborhood. My Grandmother was the last old white lady in her building. Redlining and other "systemically racist" laws were mostly about newly arrived immigrants protecting their communities from "outsiders."
Reply to you and Mark. I had an upbringing that was about as far from what you describe as possible, but it still was a very.....gritty place. I now live in another small city that is rapidly growing, and now seemingly immune to mill shutdowns and other town-killers. Both places have been "discovered" by tourists and zoomers and are being gentrified in real time. From what I can see in this tiny example is that the gentrification is not by or for long-term residents. I know, I know, progress, but I kind of like the grit, it's comforting to me, and certainly feels more real. If gentrification isn't helping get folks out of it, but just makes the mayor look good, then I say fuck it. Take your shiny money to an already shiny shit hole.
Yes Aaron I agree, gentrification does nothing to alleviate underlying problems, it just puts a fake shiny facade over them. The overall community benefits a little with a general improvement in social infrastructure, but the (mostly black) people there get it, its not really for them.
It just sends the problem somewhere else, likely under worse conditions.
Chris, that was very well said.
I appreciate how you don’t discount the historical and current realities faced by black Americans, while plainly laying out the facts of last summer that tragically led to this situation. Don’t get me wrong, the real perps played stupid games and won stupid prizes, but it’s tragic that Rittenhouse ever had to be faced with this situation. The ruling class + media in this country is officially pure evil.