The real reason mobs across the country are tearing down American monuments

[mikewhitney]

High unemployment currently due to covid, especially among black people, is leading to a lot of people with time on their hands, which they are now able to use in civic protests to express complaints about the current state of affairs (police shootings / excessive force, offensive statues, prevalent racism, Trump's governance etc) that they have long had but not had the time for complaining about. The publicity around the videoed murder of George Floyd by police was a trigger event for many, and made some of the problems obvious to many who were previously unaware how bad it was.

To say they have any one set of philosophy, reason, or goals, falsely implies unity amongst this hugely diverse grassroots mass of people. At most one could point to some themes more commonly expressed than others, which are those I listed above. It's a pretty basic error of logic to assume that all individuals within such a massive and diverse group somehow share the same views and goals.

I agree that there are protestors who have been invigorated by biased media. I am not saying that all people are revolutionists. History has shown that the revolutionists tend to be a minor part of the population, especially among the communists.

We also have to look at the culpability of the Democrat governors for improperly shutting down the economy.

Thanks for answering with your theory. It helps to figure out what you are finding weak with my explanation.

[Reepicheep]

...you live in an insignificant country that really doesn't add anything useful to mankind, and never did.

It would be interesting if you were to repeat your comment in the presence of any of the gentlemen that appear in the following video.

[Zara]

You're just completely and utterly wrong about the nuances of the American political parties, and it makes me think either you're likely not from here (yet another international twebber trying to interpret American politics better than an American) or you're just clueless beyond belief. If anything the right has gone CENTER right, especially when it comes to fiscal polices, of which they are utterly lax on now. Look what the so-called "rightwing" SCOTUS just voted on in favor of tans rights. You. Are. Clueless in regards to US politics.

Your argument is further debunked by the fact there is a clear rift between moderate democrats and progressives. Why is that? Because the progressive left, the NEW left, has gone further into kook-kookville of political delusion, of which the moderates want no part of (though they do acquiescence to a degree because they have to where it's politically expedient).

You appear to be utterly clueless about what is considered right and left in the west. Your sneering appeals to communism or far left extremism, for pretty much every policy in place in Europe, from healthcare to gun laws, reflects your extremism.

[seanD]

You appear to be utterly clueless about what is considered right and left in the west. Your sneering appeals to communism or far left extremism, for pretty much every policy in place in Europe, from healthcare to gun laws, reflects your extremism.

You know nothing about any of my personal beliefs on healthcare or gun laws. In fact, that wasn't even brought up into the discussion, at least not by me. So I can only interpret that as you're just talking out of your rear end with blind assumptions for partisan tribal reasons, which proves to me you have nothing substantial to add to the actual discussion in the thread. Thanks for that.

[Zara]

You know nothing about any of my personal beliefs on healthcare or gun laws. In fact, that wasn't even brought up into the discussion, at least not by me. So I can only interpret that as you're just talking out of your rear end with blind assumptions for partisan tribal reasons, which proves to me you have nothing substantial to add to the actual discussion in the thread. Thanks for that.

"pro-choice, pro-climate change regulation, he backs folks like Gabbard and Yang, he was anti-gun until recently", I added healthcare because only the most extreme right-wing parties in Europe are opposed. I have little doubt you are, but feel free to say you're for a European style single payer healthcare system.

[Starlight]

You're just completely and utterly wrong about the nuances of the American political parties

Alternative theory: Zara's 100% right and you're 100% wrong.

Look what the so-called "rightwing" SCOTUS just voted on in favor of trans rights

I don't think it's true to say that in every decision every SCOTUS justice simply votes their politics. They do actually, sometimes, make careful legal decisions about what the law actually says. Unlike politicians, their stated purpose is not to vote for the laws they want to exist.

Your argument is further debunked by the fact there is a clear rift between moderate democrats and progressives. Why is that?

Subsequent to FDR's New Deal, pretty much the entire US left (and even much of the US right for a while) were 'New Dealers' for a couple of decades. However, in the 70s and 80s, due to economic changes and the Vietnam War and Cold War, the mood of the country shifted and the progressivism of the New Deal became less and less popular. What had been previously very minor factions in the Dem party who advocated for a rightward shift in the party platform grew to become the majority, and under Bill Clinton this idea took on the formal name of "Triangulation" which was a conscious effort to move the party to the right. That right-leaning faction, often today called centrists, neo-liberals, corporatists, or moderates, became the majority and became the dominant force within the party, with the progressives becoming a minor faction or even borderline non-existent within the upper levels of the party. After 2008 there was a resurgence of progressivism, as many viewed the Great Recession as being fundamentally the product of the failure of the right-wing economic ideas touted by the neo-liberals. Bernie Sanders' presidential runs, as well as generational shifts, has meant that progressivism has grown as a faction within the Democratic party in the last decade. It has now reached the point where more Dem voters lean progressive than lean centrist, though the established incumbent politicians and leadership within the Dem party still lean centrist because those were the conditions they were originally elected under, and this is creating some tension within the party.

Because the progressive left, the NEW left, has gone further into kook-kookville of political delusion, of which the moderates want no part of (though they do acquiescence to a degree because they have to where it's politically expedient).

As I noted above, progressives are not a new faction within the Dem party, and they were in fact the dominant faction for a couple of decades following WWII.

[seer]

It would be interesting if you were to repeat your comment in the presence of any of the gentlemen that appear in the following video.

They are cool - at least there are still some real men left!

[seanD]

Subsequent to FDR's New Deal, pretty much the entire US left (and even much of the US right for a while) were 'New Dealers' for a couple of decades. However, in the 70s and 80s, due to economic changes and the Vietnam War and Cold War, the mood of the country shifted and the progressivism of the New Deal became less and less popular. What had been previously very minor factions in the Dem party who advocated for a rightward shift in the party platform grew to become the majority, and under Bill Clinton this idea took on the formal name of "Triangulation" which was a conscious effort to move the party to the right. That right-leaning faction, often today called centrists, neo-liberals, corporatists, or moderates, became the majority and became the dominant force within the party, with the progressives becoming a minor faction or even borderline non-existent within the upper levels of the party. After 2008 there was a resurgence of progressivism, as many viewed the Great Recession as being fundamentally the product of the failure of the right-wing economic ideas touted by the neo-liberals. Bernie Sanders' presidential runs, as well as generational shifts, has meant that progressivism has grown as a faction within the Democratic party in the last decade. It has now reached the point where more Dem voters lean progressive than lean centrist, though the established incumbent politicians and leadership within the Dem party still lean centrist because those were the conditions they were originally elected under, and this is creating some tension within the party.

You pretty much added nothing new to what I just said. The progressives are the EXTREME wing of the democratic party. Whether they support polices of the 30s is irrelevant (I would question the veracity of that if I didn't think it's a moot point). They're the "cancel culture" pushers, the ones tearing down statues, rabid and violent opponents of free speech, and propagating fake racism epidemics in America via social media. The moderates bend to their will only where it's necessary politically, but the loony polices they endorse is not what the democratic base wants, otherwise Biden -- one of the most loathsome candidates they could have picked with a much clearer racist and sexist past and cognitive health problems -- would not have won the primary, and won it soundly. But for some reason the progressive loons have a lot influence in the media and universities, and I'm not sure why. That's a future discussion I might be interested in.

[Reepicheep]

They are cool - at least there are still some real men left!

It wouldn't be a good idea to insult New Zealand women, either!

[Starlight]

Thanks for answering with your theory. It helps to figure out what you are finding weak with my explanation.

It's not that I find any one part of your explanation weak, it's that I find every part of it bonkers. You seem to have cobbled together overarching theory based on random quote snippets you've misunderstood from different people, to produce a view that I suspect not a single person among any of the protesters actually subscribes to, and which reflects your own really unusual concerns and ideas.

Some suggestions for improvement:

Step 1. Acknowledge that lots of people hold lots of different views. You can't just mix and match what different people say without accounting for the fact that those different people don't necessarily agree about everything.

Step 2. Acknowledge that different individuals can, and do, act as individuals. They each have their own reasons and motivations, are annoyed or upset about their own things. They are not the Borg. They are not mind controlled zombies with a single purpose. They are not necessarily very united in anything at all.

Step 3. Don't assume they mean by their words what you would mean by those words. Everyone says things in their own way. Everyone phrases things poorly sometimes. Just because they said something, doesn't mean they believe the things you interpret those words to mean. Them saying one sentence isn't justification for you to read your own ideas wholesale into their words. Be careful to understand what they mean by looking at the majority of their words, not the minority of them.

Step 4. Realise that Communism and its advocates are almost non-existent in the US. There's been lots of countries in the world where communism has been a popular political philosophy. The US isn't among them. Close to nobody at all in the US is a genuine communist of the Stalin/Mao variety. (As I have been discussing with Seer, Democratic Socialism is a very different thing with a very different history)

Step 5. Realise that the world isn't full of giant secret plots. It's your obsession with these that makes me think you probably suffer from a mental illness of some kind and ought to take some medication for it. Obviously, the chances of any plot staying remotely secret dramatically decreases the more people who know about it. In my general observation of life, any secret which more than a dozen or so people know has a tendency to leak if it's juicy. Because every individual has slightly different motivations, the chances of everyone who knows the secret being interested in keeping it secret decrease greatly the more who know it, and the number of people they might tell increases greatly because they know more people in total. But you seem to commonly imply the existence of giant secret plots being enacted by tens of thousands, or even millions, of people... who seem to apparently all have the same goals?? And this, despite the fact that the people who you seem to assume are involved in these plots live in different states, different countries, have nothing in common, and have never talked to each other?? The way you seem to think nothing of scaling up your theories to presume the coordinated action of thousands of unconnected individuals is usually where I draw the line and just dismiss your comments with the word "lunacy".

Step 6. Realise that if there were to be a person somewhere in the US who was genuinely a communist, who genuinely would love to enact the fall of the US and the rise of a communist takeover etc (i.e. imagine there exists a person who your theories actually describe)... then it doesn't matter in the least, as they would just be one person, and hence totally unable to achieve their aims given how much they are at odds with what the other 300 million people in the US want.

[Starlight]

The progressives are the EXTREME wing of the democratic party.

If by "EXTREME" you mean "normal" / "traditional" / "historical", or "Wanting policies that are standard in all other Western countries".

They're the "cancel culture" pushers,

As I mentioned elsewhere I don't think "cancel culture" is actually a thing. The idea of it is something people like to talk / complain about. The number of people actually doing it? So negligible in number as to be borderline non-existent.

the ones tearing down statues

Hard to say. If all progressives were out tearing down statues, there wouldn't be many statues left by the time 50 million Americans had been at it for a hour. I haven't seen interviews with statue-removers so I can't comment on the political leanings of those doing it. I suspect the ones doing it are mostly black, and within the Dem party black voters have a history of voting for the moderates not the progressives.

rabid and violent opponents of free speech

No, just no.

and propagating fake racism epidemics in America via social media.

Um. Well that's a strange claim. I dunno how to assess that one.

But for some reason the progressive loons have a lot influence in the media and universities, and I'm not sure why. That's a future discussion I might be interested in.

One of the core human personality traits psychologists have identified is called "Openness to new ideas". Greater openness to new ideas has been found to correlate with greater intelligence, and greater liberalism. If you think about it, it's not really surprising that more intelligent people are more interested in hearing about new ideas that make them think, while less intelligent people don't like to think and don't being challenged by new ideas. Likewise, traditionally at least, conservatism has been about keeping things the same ('conserving' the status quo) while liberalism (aka progressivism) has been about changing / improving things (making progress). The sorts of people who are attracted to learning new things and being constantly challenged by new ideas and new paradigms - are the sorts of people who will want to become scientists and university lecturers and news junkies and media professionals.

[seanD]

If by "EXTREME" you mean "normal" / "traditional" / "historical", or "Wanting policies that are standard in all other Western countries".

As I mentioned elsewhere I don't think "cancel culture" is actually a thing. The idea of it is something people like to talk / complain about. The number of people actually doing it? So negligible in number as to be borderline non-existent.

Hard to say. If all progressives were out tearing down statues, there wouldn't be many statues left by the time 50 million Americans had been at it for a hour. I haven't seen interviews with statue-removers so I can't comment on the political leanings of those doing it. I suspect the ones doing it are mostly black, and within the Dem party black voters have a history of voting for the moderates not the progressives.


No, just no.

Um. Well that's a strange claim. I dunno how to assess that one.

One of the core human personality traits psychologists have identified is called "Openness to new ideas". Greater openness to new ideas has been found to correlate with greater intelligence, and greater liberalism. If you think about it, it's not really surprising that more intelligent people are more interested in hearing about new ideas that make them think, while less intelligent people don't like to think and don't being challenged by new ideas. Likewise, traditionally at least, conservatism has been about keeping things the same ('conserving' the status quo) while liberalism (aka progressivism) has been about changing / improving things (making progress). The sorts of people who are attracted to learning new things and being constantly challenged by new ideas and new paradigms - are the sorts of people who will want to become scientists and university lecturers and news junkies and media professionals.

No need for me to go into great detail here because so much of this incoherent post is so wrong on so many levels. Considering one of the leaders of BLM considers herself a "trained marxist," no, that isn't "historical" or "traditional." In fact, the very idea is nothing moderate about that in American history. Just the word "marxist" is so far removed from the norm of American tradition, including even liberal politics, just shows how delusional you are about American politics. And just to show further how ridiculously wrong your whole assessment of this issue is, here's a statue being torn down...

Blacks folks? I think not. A few black folks, but they mostly look white to me. And another...

Black folks? A few. As to the rest of your scattered post, considering there wasn't anything really coherent, I'll just leave you to wallow in your misguided delusion about what American politics is.

[mikewhitney]

It's not that I find any one part of your explanation weak, it's that I find every part of it bonkers. You seem to have cobbled together overarching theory based on random quote snippets you've misunderstood from different people, to produce a view that I suspect not a single person among any of the protesters actually subscribes to, and which reflects your own really unusual concerns and ideas.

Some suggestions for improvement:

Step 1. Acknowledge that lots of people hold lots of different views. You can't just mix and match what different people say without accounting for the fact that those different people don't necessarily agree about everything.

Step 2. Acknowledge that different individuals can, and do, act as individuals. They each have their own reasons and motivations, are annoyed or upset about their own things. They are not the Borg. They are not mind controlled zombies with a single purpose. They are not necessarily very united in anything at all.

Step 3. Don't assume they mean by their words what you would mean by those words. Everyone says things in their own way. Everyone phrases things poorly sometimes. Just because they said something, doesn't mean they believe the things you interpret those words to mean. Them saying one sentence isn't justification for you to read your own ideas wholesale into their words. Be careful to understand what they mean by looking at the majority of their words, not the minority of them.

Step 4. Realise that Communism and its advocates are almost non-existent in the US. There's been lots of countries in the world where communism has been a popular political philosophy. The US isn't among them. Close to nobody at all in the US is a genuine communist of the Stalin/Mao variety. (As I have been discussing with Seer, Democratic Socialism is a very different thing with a very different history)

Step 5. Realise that the world isn't full of giant secret plots. It's your obsession with these that makes me think you probably suffer from a mental illness of some kind and ought to take some medication for it. Obviously, the chances of any plot staying remotely secret dramatically decreases the more people who know about it. In my general observation of life, any secret which more than a dozen or so people know has a tendency to leak if it's juicy. Because every individual has slightly different motivations, the chances of everyone who knows the secret being interested in keeping it secret decrease greatly the more who know it, and the number of people they might tell increases greatly because they know more people in total. But you seem to commonly imply the existence of giant secret plots being enacted by tens of thousands, or even millions, of people... who seem to apparently all have the same goals?? And this, despite the fact that the people who you seem to assume are involved in these plots live in different states, different countries, have nothing in common, and have never talked to each other?? The way you seem to think nothing of scaling up your theories to presume the coordinated action of thousands of unconnected individuals is usually where I draw the line and just dismiss your comments with the word "lunacy".

Step 6. Realise that if there were to be a person somewhere in the US who was genuinely a communist, who genuinely would love to enact the fall of the US and the rise of a communist takeover etc (i.e. imagine there exists a person who your theories actually describe)... then it doesn't matter in the least, as they would just be one person, and hence totally unable to achieve their aims given how much they are at odds with what the other 300 million people in the US want.

I wish I could live in such blissful ignorance of the form you espouse here. You also failed to recognize some concessions about motives of different people, so I assume you did not pay attention to what I wrote. Concerning item 5, I did not say there were hidden motives; I mentioned there was a blatant claim to Marxist tactics and doctrines -- while using "Marxist" as a general term to include radical elements. This concern about communism has been real and has continued since, at minimal, the 50s. To disregard this is simply to be blind to history -- or to be indoctrinated against recognizing the threat.

I can see enough of the situation to recognize that a minority group controlling BLM can make dupes out of protestors ... not that protestors are doing anything wrong. However, the BLM (with aid of the mainstream media) can make it seem that all protestors are revolting against the country. I'm not sure why you are not able to comprehend the obvious here.

You very complacency to this threat makes it obvious how communities across the world can be duped into support of a revolution.

[seer]

It wouldn't be a good idea to insult New Zealand women, either!

Ouch, now I feel sorry for the men...