In-SIRRR-ekshn!!

OMG, I just discovered that some poor bastards are calling the Capitol break-in “insurrection.”

It was probably invented by the same bunch of rich people who brought us “Resistance” and “two weeks to flatten the curve.”

Another, much harsher Patriot Act is definitely coming. Because, in-SIRRR-ekshn!!

And the poor dumb idiots will be celebrating the taking away of their rights.

24 thoughts on “In-SIRRR-ekshn!!”

  1. This probably sounds terrible but I’m looking forward to watching people on the left melt down when all of the draconian measures that they want for everyone else are applied to them.

    Something similar happened here when I live and it was quite glorious 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The standard dictionary and legal definition of “insurrection” is “a violent uprising against an authority or government” — which is precisely what occurred. .

    The fact that it failed so quickly doesn’t change that.

    Like

    1. “The standard dictionary and legal definition of “insurrection” is “a violent uprising against an authority or government” — which is precisely what occurred.”

      According to my knowledge, in order for a violent uprising to occur, both violence and uprising must be popular.

      What I saw was a protest in which the majority of people were peaceful, with a very small proportion becoming violent, and with a still much smaller proportion entering government buildings in what looked more like opportunistic hooliganism by that small group than anything else.

      So, anyone seeking to characterise the entire event as being an “uprising” would have to argue that the hooliganism of a few dozen people and/or the violence of a few scores of people was popular, which I don’t think that anyone can do.

      I mean, if anyone tried doing that around me, the first thing I would do is ask if all English football matches in which hooliganism occurs in the grandstands are all riots.

      Like

      1. “According to my knowledge, in order for a violent uprising to occur, both violence and uprising must be popular.”

        That’s not part of the definition. This violent uprising was sufficiently large to temporarily completely disrupt the functioning national legislature and force the government’s elected officials into a bunker, so calling it an insurrection isn’t overstating the event.

        Like

        1. If that was an uprising, then what was the burning of the federal courthouses and police precincts that went on for months since May? The President of the US was forced into a bunker by a violent assault on the WH. When that happened, nobody called it an insurrection. Instead, everybody laughed. Ha ha, silly Trump hiding in a bunker like a coward.

          That dictionary is malfunctioning. 🙂

          Like

          1. “If that was an uprising, then what was the burning of the federal courthouses and police precincts that went on for months since May?”

            As long as we’re picking at straws, the BLM anarchists who burned federal and local government buildings and many private businesses weren’t participating in an uprising specifically aimed at disrupting an operating national government (which the insurrectionists who targeted Pelosi and Pence to prevent any impeachment/25th amendment action were), so that leaves their violence in the category of “riots.”

            I an NOT elevating the importance of the idiots who took over Washington last Wednesday to anything above transient brainless violence — but it was still “insurrection.”

            Like

            1. @ Driedel: Respectfully, I don’t agree with how you’re interpreting the word “insurrection”. What you’re saying seems to revolve around the idea that any person performing an action that disrupts an operating national government has committed insurrection.

              According to that interpretation, a teenager who drops a cherry bomb into a toilet within a public building that floods the building with sewerage is an insurrectionist because all of the politicians didn’t want to smell all of the poop and went home.

              The way I understand the word, insurrectionists must actually be opposing the government in a significant way rather than just inconveniencing, annoying, or trolling it.

              Like

            2. So, just for the sake of clarifying definitions, was the 1954 Capitol shooting by Puerto Rican separatists a protest, an insurrection, or what? How would you characterize that event? It definitely disrupted government, five congressmen were shot, and nobody felt the need to pass any new antiterrorism laws after, as far as I know.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. @ methylethyl: “So, just for the sake of clarifying definitions, was the 1954 Capitol shooting by Puerto Rican separatists a protest, an insurrection, or what? How would you characterize that event? It definitely disrupted government, five congressmen were shot, and nobody felt the need to pass any new antiterrorism laws after, as far as I know.”

                I’d characterise it as being a separatist uprising and/or separatist insurrection. The shooters wanted the independence of Puerto Rico from the US. The sentiment was popular in Puerto Rico, and was even part of the official stance of several political parties. It was obviously violent, and so the definition is satisfied.

                As for the application of the the word “terrorism”, I think it depends on how the event is sensed. From the perspective of the US, the violence was political and definitely unlawful from a US perspective, which means that the action can be sensed as satisfying the definition of the word “terrorism”.

                Conversely, from the perspective of the Puerto Ricans who were trying to get rid of the US through dialogue without success, who sensed the US and everyone else as breaking the law first by wrongly occupying/making foreign policy decisions for Puerto Rico, the violence could be legally justified as whatever it is – resisting an oppressor, defense of the state etc or whatever phrase is written into their constitution about sovereignity – which means that to the sense of the Puerto Ricans the event couldn’t be terrorism because the violence wasn’t unlawful.

                Like

        2. “This violent uprising was sufficiently large to temporarily completely disrupt the functioning national legislature and force the government’s elected officials into a bunker, so calling it an insurrection isn’t overstating the event.”

          It is in the definition that pops up using a Google search. here:

          uprising: “an act or instance of rising up especially : a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government.”

          “This violent uprising was sufficiently large to temporarily completely disrupt the functioning national legislature and force the government’s elected officials into a bunker, so calling it an insurrection isn’t overstating the event.”

          I think that it badly overstates the event, since the point of an uprising is to overthrow a government or a policy. When those few hooligans made it into the building, they didn’t declare themselves to be the new government which had now replaced the old overthrown government. Instead, they just moved some furniture around and took selfies.

          The fact that government officials were in a bunker while shirtless men wearing party horns and fur stood above them isn’t really relevant either imo.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. The most important question is this: why is such overblown rhetoric being used? What’s the goal?

            Outsize rhetoric is used to justify an outsized response. This is all I’m preparation of an enormous crackdown.

            People, stay alert. Absolutely any opinion that’s not on the extreme left is now “violent” and “incitement.”

            Like

            1. “Outsize rhetoric is used to justify an outsized response. This is all I’m preparation of an enormous crackdown.”

              Yep. They’re also demonising Trump supporters, which they’ll probably follow with dehumanising them, before trying to get rid of them somehow.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. And that’s not 2 or 3 people. It’s 40% of the population of the country.

                Siccing people on each other like this, that’s real incitement.

                Like

              2. “And that’s not 2 or 3 people. It’s 40% of the population of the country.”

                In my experience (experience.) at least 90% of that 40% cave in almost instantly. The prominent ones, stubborn ones, or the ones who have something that the government wants (a business, property etc) are the ones who are targeted.

                “Siccing people on each other like this, that’s real incitement.”

                I’d characterise it as sedition, personally. But yes, incitement to [insert bad thing here] works out the same.

                Like

            2. “The most important question is this: why is such overblown rhetoric being used? What’s the goal?”

              Because they’ve realized the status quo is very dangerous. There are now calls for an armed march on Washington that could indeed turn into an armed insurrection.

              Like

              1. I explained the real goal very clearly. It’s to deprive us of our civil rights like happened after 9/11.

                The fear-mongering about coups and insurrections are as much a lie as Saddam and WMDs.

                Please, friends, stay alert. You can’t buy into these lies every 20 years.

                Like

            3. The rhetoric is so they can ram through a whole new slate of fun speech suppression legislation in the name of “antiterrorism”. This is why suddenly, they’re not protesters or even insurrectionists, they’re “domestic terrorists”.

              Mark me down as “concerned.”

              Liked by 1 person

        3. I’ve seen the videos where the law enforcement are holding open the door while “trump” people slowly and calmly walk through with smiles and chat. They were invited in. Later, law enforcement herded people standing outside into a group and made arrests. I’ve got a text from a friend from someone arrested.

          Let’s just stop and think for a minute. Why would trump supporters try to INTERRUPT the closest thing they and Trump would get to their “day in court.” It’s completely illogical. Cui Bono? The establishment politicians. Not Trump. He didn’t call for “storming” congress or organize it, but it seems some supporters, egged on by infiltrators, entered the building and acted silly. One was shot and killed.

          I saw other video of trump supporters trying to stop people from smashing in windows, calling them out as “not one of us.”

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.