Violence at Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia

[Cosmos]

It looks like the car-ramming might not have been as intentional as previously believed. Videos shared by the Duran:

http://<iframe width="840" height="...I4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://<iframe width="840" height="...Wo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Basically, the videos show the car driving at a slow speed at first. Then, one of the counter-protestors throws/swings some object at the rear left tail light. After that, the driver speeds up. Maybe he got angry and decided to ram the people in front - a really stupid and reckless thing to do, for multiple reasons. Or maybe he got scared and mechanically slammed on the gas pedal, then further panicked and reversed to escape being surrounded.

But it's hard to tell exactly, because the videos have been slowed down. He may have been driving too fast to begin with, and the guy smashing his light was incidental.

It looks like the car-ramming might not have been as intentional as previously believed...

This drone footage shows that lefties were concentrated at that junction:

http://<iframe width="853" height="...rQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The driver of the car knew what he was doing.

Am I imagining things, or are the first two videos above, showing another type of car with another colour compared to the drone footage below? Also, the locations/surroundings/directions look different in the drone video.

 

[Siberia]

Am I imagining things, or are the first two videos above, showing another type of car with another colour compared to the drone footage below? Also, the locations/surroundings/directions look different in the drone video.

As I understand, one car hit two other cars in front of it and then backed out. Here is an interesting analysis, fwiw:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...aI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Niall]

That isn't Fields' Dodge Charger you see in the drone video. It's the last of the two cars ahead of him that he rammed into.

My point in using the drone footage was to show that the lefty protestors were concentrated at that intersection.

So the stories circulating that Fields was 'running away from hostile protestors' is improbable because, if you follow the suggestion to its likely conclusion, we're then being asked to consider that Fields just 'happened to' drive down one of just four streets leading to the intersection, where the bulk of the protestors was situated, and at high speed, i.e. absolving him of any intention to run lefties over.

 

[Niall]

As I understand, one car hit two other cars in front of it and then backed out. Here is an interesting analysis, fwiw:

Absolute rubbish. The premise there is that he was driving just a tad recklessly down the street, minding his own business, when some ruffian took a swing at his car 'with a baseball bat' (it's not at all clear what that object was but my guess is a pole with a flag on it), which caused Fields to panic and drive his car into the back of the car ahead of him.

No, the reason people were getting out of the way, turning heads, pointing phone cameras, and lastly taking a swing at his car was because they could see that a car was barrelling down the street towards a dense crowd of people.

Remember, we live in a time when 'hoaxism' is already well-established, where 'all the world's a stage', and absolutely nothing is as it seems. This is often true, in some contexts, but other times, a cigar is just a cigar. Postmodernism has infected everything, so boundless subjectivity is to be expected from both 'the left' and 'the right'.

People spend hours analyzing video footage to read into it whatever they need to see in order to make it conform to their beliefs.

The task at hand for people like the above YouTuber is to absolve Fields of criminal intent. Why? Because events like this make 'us' ('the right', 'the people') feel bad, and they make 'us' feel bad because they make 'us' look bad, which is of course what such events are designed to do.

Fields is not 'us'; he's an actual extremist, someone who would sign up with ISIS if he was Muslim. Just as the 300 other nut-jobs gathered at 'Unite the Right' are not representative of the vast body of American conservatism. So there's no need to defend him or his ilk.

 

[Joe]

As we've seen in Syria. It is very hard to start a real revolution in a country with only 26 million people, the majority of whom had no interest in a revolution. In Syria it required a fully equipped external army of at least 50,000 (more like 100,000 probably) who were funneled into the country and continually resupplied and supported by foreign state military resources. So how do we imagine it could transpire in the USA, a country of 340,000,000, the vast (silent) majority of whom have no interest in a revolution and see the extreme right and left as ridiculous?

Who would have thought that "19 Arab hijackers" would be the fuse to pretty much set the whole world on fire via "The War on Terror"! Remember, we're not dealing w/ just the psychopathic elite, but their 4D handlers as well!

I think that's a false equivalency. 19 Arab hijackers weren't the fuse that set the world on fire, the 9/11 attacks were, and they likely involved significant state support, as did the "setting the world on fire" that came as a result of the 9/11, which goes back to my point. It would be helpful if you would think a little more critically about these kinds of questions, rather than engaging in what appears to be free association.

 

[Joe]

The real question for me is, how and why did this 'event' even happen? The whole thing has a staged feel to it, not in the "actors" way but rather in the sense that someone in authority allowed these two groups to get together for a specific purpose.

The whole thing sounds iffy to me too. Basically you've some neonazi activists (who have a track record of hatred and violence) on one side, you have some antifa activists (who have a similar track record) on the other side, you have the authority who let the whole thing happen (although a violent outcome is almost unavoidable) and you have a bunch of media who extensively record and comment the hystericising footage.

I also wonder why this event even occurred. According to Gavin McInnes from Rebel Media he was approached by that Kessler fellow in the months leading up to the rally. He tried to recruit him and his conservative group, but Gavin could see that the event was being manipulated and refused to give his consent. Gavin even goes so far as to call the guy a 'spy'. The video I'm referring to is here. With all this about Kessler operating in the Occupy movement and now completely switching sides to become a neo-Nazi organizer I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he was an agent of some sort. Clearly it's pushed a lot of people off the ledge into the extreme Left, if they were holding onto some semblance of sanity before.

And how easy it would be for someone like Kessler to manipulate those rather simple minded KKK types. Too easy.

 

[Joe]

Just found this gem of a comment on youtube : ''Hello and welcome to this week in Weimar Germany where communists and Nazis are fighting in the streets again...''

It IS pretty interesting how that aspect seems to be repeating, eh? There's also the idea of 'cultural bolshevism' stemming from the 1917 October revolution that the Nazis were very unhappy about in the 1930s. At the time the Nazis conflated bolshevism/communism with the Jews. Very interesting to see 'cultural marxism' being decried by the modern Right.

 

[Scottie]

My problem with the whole thing is that the "dense crowd" in the aerial video is actually a joke. There was nobody there!!!

If such a tiny number of people can lead to the current poostorm, then clearly there is already "backing" of one description or another. Same with all the transgender nonsense. Or what about the Damore Google memo? It was basically sat on for a month. Then suddenly someone leaks it, and poof!

And no one is thinking clearly about any of it, possibly even including me. That kinda makes sense, because the key would be to get everyone as riled up + fearful as possible.

Even with my admittedly limited knowledge of history though, it's pretty clear where things are being pushed. A large proportion of the population isn't even required to foment chaos, which I guess is why the US loves their revolutionary techniques. They rely on the fact that most humans are silly, fickle creatures.

There is also nothing that says that chaos in the USA would have to happen exactly as it did in Ukraine, for example. That would depend on the ultimate goal of the psychos running things, and most likely they're also losing it at this point, so who knows if "reason" is even remotely applicable.

What actually happens, well, that's another story and we'll have to wait and see.

I'm actually waiting for the economic aspect, because that would hit the whole population very hard, making all kinds of chaos far more likely, IMO.

 

[Windmill knight]

I think he handled that very well, to be honest.

Yes, Trump sounded quite reasonable. Wait to get the facts straight before making political satements; condemn all parties involved in violence, from both sides; recognize that both groups had a mix of people, not all of them 'extremists'; recognize that just because history and historical figures are controversial you can't just go around removing monuments, but ultimately leave the decision to local authorities. I see nothing wrong with those points, yet the CNN and the rest are making it sound like he's totally crazy and directly responsible for the violence.

Added:

I'm actually waiting for the economic aspect, because that would hit the whole population very hard, making all kinds of chaos far more likely, IMO.

At the end of the conference Trump was asked how he thought the racial issues could be solved, and he replied something like creating many more jobs would help. Initially it sounds like he was totally dodging the question, but on second thought I think it was a clever answer. People get upset with other ethnic groups largely because of economic disparities and what comes with them, like crime. If the economy improves, people will be less likely to think that "they" are stealing our jobs and resources / comitting crimes / opressing us, etc. On the other hand, if the economy goes down, we can expect way more animosity among social and ethnic groups.

 

[Joe]

It looks like the car-ramming might not have been as intentional as previously believed. Videos shared by the Duran:

The object seems to be a piece of material or maybe a flag on a stick, and if you look closely, it seems that only the cloth material hit the car. The driver may not even have noticed it.

The reason the driver slowed down might be explained by his realizing there were two cars blocking the street/moving slowly. I can't really see how this absolves him of anything though. The most logical explanation is that he still had the intent to drive into people. If he didn't, why did he?

Imagine yourself innocently driving down a street, trying to get out the other side. You realize the street is blocked by 2 cars. You slow down, you speak to one of the protestors and tell them that you're trying to move through. One of them hits your car with a stick or flag. What do you do? Protest? Tell them you're just trying to get through?

Why didn't Fields do all of this if he had no intention of hitting people, instead of driving at high speed into the protesters and stationary cars?

 

[Niall]

I also wonder why this event even occurred. According to Gavin McInnes from Rebel Media he was approached by that Kessler fellow in the months leading up to the rally. He tried to recruit him and his conservative group, but Gavin could see that the event was being manipulated and refused to give his consent. Gavin even goes so far as to call the guy a 'spy'. The video I'm referring to is here.

Well put by McInnes. He saw a mile off that 'Unite the Right' was actually 'Divide the Right'. And he disavows any connection with or support of Fields and the Nazi types. What's interesting are the most-voted comments by his followers below...

Wow, I lost respect for you on this one Gavin. <snip> I've stood by you as the Alt-Right continued to mock and disavow and laugh at you, because even though our ideologies don't see eye-to-eye, I respected the fact you at least had principles. But now I realize they were right all along. You really are a cuck.

The right was the only side with sane, decent people, please don't stain our side and stoop to the same level as the left.

Why is ethno-nationalism wrong?

Oh, cool, they already had the trial for the driver? Amazingly fast court system we have now, thanks Gav! Glad to know you didn't jump to any conclusion! <snip> 

I'm not alt right, I'm not alt right, I'm not alt right! Pffft! When shit gets real! F**king bounce why don't you!

Has the left beat you down, bro? You suddenly sound frightened

Gavin McCuck

<snip> FFS. Oh and Gavin, this is one of your worst videos ever.

Grow some f**king balls, you don't have to like the alt-right and i don't really like them either but to disavow them like a weak a$$ b**ch only make you appear like a weak ass bitch to Leftists and that's not good. Do you see them disavow Antifa btw ? I don't and nobody is busting their balls for it.

Keep in mind that this was the guy who abandoned his own university talk in New York because he was afraid of antifa and left the attendees alone. Gavin McInnes is a cool guy, but he's a coward. Don't go to him for free speech rally advice.

F**k multiculturalism, you're in America. Believe what you want but don't impose any bulls**t on me. The West is the best period.

you're such a cowardly weasel mclnnes. You are no longer relevant. This gonna get lot hairier. Maybe you should take stand controversial issues, oh.... I don't know, how we shouldn't abuse puppies. I for one can behind that

No one wanted you or the Proud Cucks there

Ooh boy. The US is cruising for a bruising.

 

[Joe]

Obama sets ‘likes’ record on Twitter over Charlottesville violence

Former US President Barack Obama’s anti-racism tweet has gained a record number of likes and an enormous amount of shares. What has become the most ‘liked’ tweet in history was posted in the wake of violent protests and a car-ramming incident in Charlottesville, Virginia, which left one person dead and dozens injured.

“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion,” Obama tweeted on August 12. The number of likes is approaching 3 million, while around 1.2 million people have shared the message and 46,000 have commented on it, as of Wednesday morning.

The problem is, while this isn't exactly a lie, it is not true either. No one is born hating another person because of the color of their skin, but 'people' aren't born. Babies are, and they are born with more or less nothing in the way of overt biases, except for a few basics like warmth, touch and food and an aversion to the opposite. So what he's saying here is that babies aren't born overt racists, which is the similar to the statement that frogs don't hate black people. Of course they don't because they can't. As children grow and become able to express their innate genetic makeup however, inherent preferences DO manifest or at least DO exist, as many studies have shown.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with those biases, as long as they are not used to do undue harm to others. But no one should be foolish enough to think they can forcibly wipe clean that instinctive substratum without incurring serious problems for society at large.

It MAY be possible, over many generations and via a broad scale concerted effort through cultural and social programming to change that instinctive substratum, but scientific evidence shows that we are NOT there yet, and trying to force the issue over a few decades is going to cause all sorts of problems.

Here's Obama's tweet with the image he used. I posted this tweet in response:

"Guess which baby he is preferentially looking at?"

 

[Niall]

The problem is, while this isn't exactly a lie, it is not true either. No one is born hating another person because of the color of their skin, but 'people' aren't born. Babies are, and they are born with more or less nothing in the way of biases, except for a few basics like warmth, touch and food and an aversion to the opposite. So what he's saying here is that babies aren't born racists, which is the similar to the statement that frogs don't hate black people. Of course they don't because they can't. As children grow into children and adults and become able to express their innate genetic makeup however, inherent preferences DO manifest or at least DO exist, as many studies have shown.

Very interesting. So people are in fact instinctively programmed to be wary of anything 'not-alike'. They can tame that instinct in the interest of mutual cooperation rather than destructive predation, but if it's pushed too far, it's like the 'coiled spring' Laura describes.

 

[Joe]

The problem is, while this isn't exactly a lie, it is not true either. No one is born hating another person because of the color of their skin, but 'people' aren't born. Babies are, and they are born with more or less nothing in the way of biases, except for a few basics like warmth, touch and food and an aversion to the opposite. So what he's saying here is that babies aren't born racists, which is the similar to the statement that frogs don't hate black people. Of course they don't because they can't. As children grow into children and adults and become able to express their innate genetic makeup however, inherent preferences DO manifest or at least DO exist, as many studies have shown.

Very interesting. So people are in fact instinctively programmed to be wary of anything 'not-alike'. They can tame that instinct in the interest of mutual cooperation rather than destructive predation, but if it's pushed too far, it's like the 'coiled spring' Laura describes.

Pretty much. Here's a short video on the topic of babies. Even at a very young age they are able to express such things. This video deals with good and bad, liking the one that likes what I like and, perhaps most significantly, wanting to see the one who is different to me treated badly. So you can extrapolate to race, 'gender' etc. pretty easily.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...6c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Laura]

Here's a short video on the topic of babies. Even at a very young age they are able to express such things. This video deals with good and bad, liking the one that likes what I like and, perhaps most significantly, wanting to see the one who is different to me treated badly. So you can extrapolate to race, 'gender' etc. pretty easily.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...6c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yes, that instinctive substratum that reacts to difference. Lobaczewski talks about this.

And that is why I think (and continue to think) that it is a very good idea for very young children of all ethnicities to go to school together or some kind of play place for an hour or three a day, and be actively taught that external, visible differences are NOT an issue. They need to be cleverly taught compassion and "sameness" in that they are humans. Then, possibly, they can also learn in very simple ways, as a side effect of this, that the real differences are unseen, matters of BEing, what is inside.

One of the greatest tools of the psychopath is to use our own nature against us.