Pay Attention
If you spend some time digging you will find that one of the main organizers for the white nationalist protest was a democrat who worked for Obama campaign and was a lead organizer for Occupy Wallstreet. If you keep digging further you will find that a lead organizer for the BLM and Antifa protesters is openly anti-Semitic having organized anti Israel protests on college campuses. If this seems unusual to you then you need to brush up on what agitators do and how they work to manipulate public sentiment and politics. .
I can only conclude that the Occupy freak was paid to organize the white nationalists to create a high probability hostile confrontation. Lots of Soros money poured into this and many other incidents. The Obama connection fits, as he's currently carrying out a program of sedition aimed at tearing apart the fabric of the republic.
With the actions of Antifa and BLM now being portrayed by the media propaganda arm as a heroic movement against white oppressors, they've become the new SA (Nazi Brownshirts). The Deep state is preparing for the return of Obama, now as President for life and savior. Like Hitler, his first attempt failed, but he sees the possibility for a victorious return, just like Adolf. When will we see the new Reichstag fire?
I saw this the other day.
The left is pounding the racist label on to the dissatisfied Americans who voted no to the establishment and the PC disease. Never have I witnessed a more concerted effort to destroy our chosen President and to incite racial tensions. We do have a clear view of the statist collectivist ceo's who have walked away from Trump.
These intended violent protests unfortunately maybe just the early innings so to speak.
Racist radicals or anti-Fa are insignificant wastes.
All is an effort to further divide and funnel. It distracts from the ineptitude of congress to repeal the disastrous ACA. The attacks and lies and unfounded charges against Trump with no evidence is relentless.
An UN Civil war.
Too bad the cops in Charlottesville did not simply protect property but let the groups kick the snot out of each other and just do mop up after.
- - and - - the LEFT believes everything he says (but does not really believe).
He is not paid, nor a plant, he has not changed his mind.
This person is an attention seeker.
A very profitable outlet for attention seekers is to be a political activist.
Right, wrong, good or bad have no relevance.
There is the adrenalin from street marches with placards and raised fists and the thrill of
making inflammatory statements and speeches in front of adulating applauding audiences.
1. Is Kessler just someone who loves leading political movements without regard to what they're about?
2. Is Kessler an example of the same phenomenon that made Bernie Sanders' praise some of then candidate Trump's ideas in a NYT article? My thought is politics may be changing to gov't intervention vs laissez faire. If Kessler, Trump, and Sanders represent the gov't-action side. Sadly, I don't see a strong laissez faire side.
3. Is it some kind of conspiracy to make President Trump look bad?
4. [goofiness]In the Star Trek episode Wolf in the Fold, the psychic identifies the monster as "Kesla". Maybe she was pronouncing Kessler but with the non-rhotic Mid-Atlantic accent actors used at the time.[/goofiness]
Sorry for the bad joke.
My guess is it's a mixture of #1 and #2. #3 is intriguing, but I lean away from the "great person" view of history. It's hard for me to see how with all the money and savvy in the world, conspirators could have hired someone to make these protests happen or make them not happen. Conditions had to be ripe for it. I can't rule it out, though. A great agitator could tip the scales.
I find it odder how President Trump appears to shoot himself in the foot on this issue. I thought it was bad that someone who usually is keen to pound is chest at the bad guys failed to do it immediately to the Nazis at the protest. Eventually he did. His critics carried on in the way President Obama's critics carried on saying he wasn't denouncing religious extremists hard enough, even after he repeatedly called ISIS "a vicious brutal death cult". They just wouldn't be satisfied. President Trump's critics were doing the same thing, trying to keep this minor issue of his slow response alive. It was really a non-issue. If he went back to his job and they kept harping on him, it worked in his favor. Then he brings the issue back to life again. It's like he wants attention and he doesn't care what it's for. Even if a conspiracy instigated the protests to goad President Trump into saying something stupid, Trump totally took the bait.
My impression is President Trump craves attention so badly he'll do anything to get it. Usually it's things with high outrage-to-importance ratios. I'm very concerned he'll accidentally do something important and destructive in the course of his attention-seeking.
While I have no love for the Nazi's whatsoever that doesn't mean that the immediate reaction to the mayhem should be to blame them and only them. I think Trumps initial statement was correct. He decried bigotry, racism and violence on all sides. There is nothing wrong with that.
I haven't seen any explanation of how a conspiracy would work, but I"ll try to make one up.
1. President Trump's critics come up with a plan to undermine him.
My thought: When it comes to his job and actions as president, President Trump is nothing extraordinary, so I can't see people singling him out for a conspiracy any more than Obama, W Bush, Clinton, or Bush. But I accept at that level there's always an incentive for political shenanigans.
2. The conspirators hire agitators to rile up extremists: racists and communists.
My thought: If the conspirators and agitators pull this off, there had to be a good number of extremists present already. The conspirators would not have the power to radicalize large numbers of people under the radar. They could only tip the scales a little.
3. The plan would be to undermine President Trump in these ways:
a) Any time racist idiots do anything, some of President Trump's critics are quick to blame it on Trump. The president always takes some heat for stuff that happens on his watch. Trump takes even more heat because open racists support him and he doesn't decisively disavow them.
b) The conspirators knew that President Trump would mishandle the response.
c) Even if none of this works, just having a crisis opens opportunities for change. So people who want new gun laws, more surveillance, more police powers might get them if there are frequent riots.
My thought: I see A, but none of the rest. Regarding B, President Trump might have delivered that standard message he gave this past weekend. His critics would have harped on it no matter what, but even a humdrum message condemning violence and expressing sympathy for people hurt might have been a win for him. And there was a chance he would have turned on some of his locked-and-loaded bravado and it would have resonated and strengthened him. Regarding C, a crisis can open opportunities, but there's no guarantee they'll be what the conspirators want. Crises come along naturally frequently enough that the conspirators could just wait for the next one and focus on their plan to exploit it rather than fomenting the crisis itself.
Maybe the difference between me and people who see a conspiracy is that I find his comments on Monday reprehensible and stupid. I say stupid b/c he could have let the issue die, focused on other things, and his critics would be left trying to milk everything they can out of a tragedy. I think they're reprehensible because it sounded like he was defending Nazis. If the comments weren't really offensive and the media presentation of them tainted my view, then the conspiracy is totally working on me because I find him patently offensive. It's working on a lot of people. If the media have this much power of manipulation, why did they even need to agitate racists?
In my view of it there are not sides. Sides would be if it were a dispute over taking down the statue or not that turned violent. I don't consider people marching under the banner of the swastika a side. President Trump pointed out that the Nazi's "side" wasn't the only side committing crimes, without condemning the Nazi cause. This, along with his history of making unequivocal snap condemnations of things he thinks are wrong, makes him appear an apologist for Nazi's, racists, etc.
As I said, I think this is a minor issue. He eventually condemned the Nazis. I can imagine him saying to an adviser, "Really!? Because of "optics" and the rules of politics I have to proclaim repeatedly that Nazis are evil, as if I maybe I think Nazis are good?" I could imagine President Obama saying the same thing about Islamist militants.
The major issue is why he brought it up again. His critics could have kept the issue of him not condemning Nazis fast enough alive while he went on to other things. It seems he can't resist attention. I'm afraid his attention-seeking activities will eventually have real consequences.
I suspect he's thinking up something outrageous right now. I used to think he confined it to things that didn't matter. Maybe he does. I don't know. I wonder if he had an opportunity to stoke a conflict and work things out such that he was first president to deploy a low-yield tactical nuke if he wouldn't jump at the opportunity to have something related to him on the front page for weeks. I think he's dangerous.
I think we are witnessing the unelected media and the DC swamp taking down a lawfully elected president.
He's doing it to himself. After he made the statement condemning extremists, he could have just let it go. The only thing President Trump had done wrong at that time was be slow to condemn extremists. I wrote a comment to the NYT saying that Trump's critics just won't let this minor thing go and are intent on carrying on talking about his slow response. It reminded me of President Obama's critics never being satisfied with his condemnation of religious extremists.
Then on Monday President Trump made comments that sounded to me like defending Nazis. Why? My guess is he naturally seeks attention, and doesn't care if it's for something good or bad. That's why I think he's dangerous.
His second then just got weird. I actually agree with him on the both sides thing, I live in California and the violent left has successfully squelched free conservative thought here (through violence or threat of violence)... but then he just couldn't stop.
Cohn looked like he wanted to resign and walk away.
Much of Trump's policies are dead-on, particularly with how to handle the short fat kid in NOKO, but his weird personality trait of pushing something he is wrong about until looking like an idiot is going to doom himself. He needs a handler, no other way to put it.
I agree with your post, except to me calling it sides is just wrong. If you had people with banners admiring Hitler fighting in the street with people admiring Stalin, it would not be two sides. Consider if there had been gangs of thugs fighting for territory where they control the drug trade and street prostitution. We wouldn't say there crimes committed by both sides. It legitimates criminals engaged in street fighting and murder.
Edit add: Actually, the left stream media wanted to create the scenario where they could force Trump to condemn ONLY the neo-Nazis and let their thuggish "side" (Antifa) off the hook. Since Trump caved, their plan worked.
Both groups were looking for a rumble so to speak, they all came well-equipped it seemed like. If you don't want a fight, it's very possible to just walk away. For that reason, I think all of them were in the wrong.
Our free speech in the US is part of what facilitates the smooth transition of power from one elected leader to the next, something that is very rare in the world.
We need a broad reset, with all rights as "absolutes".
I agree. They're guaranteed in the Constitution for the unusual situations, e.g. Nazi protests or someone shooing up a school, when reasonable people might vote for the gov't to take away people's rights. The Constitution is for these abnormal situations, making the gov't respect rights regardless of what the majority thinks. I agree we need a reset and to start respecting them absolutely.
I was walking through a plaza in Chicago in the mid 70's lost in thought and suddenly noticed that the guy next to me was in a classic brown shirt with a red arm band with a swastica on it. then I notice a couple dozen people around me similary dressed. I had wandered into a Nazi gathering. I scurried out past the line of police surrounding them. I felt chilled but not in danger.
I wonder if the same would be true if I accidentally wandered into an antifa gathering.
What's the conspiracy and qui bono? I usually see human error where other people see conspiracies, but in this case I cannot even the potential conspiracy scenario. Suppose Kessler is an agent of a conspiracy. How would the plan go?