Darryl Cooper explains what the right has been thinking for the last few years

The New Neo Posted on by

I highlighted Darryl Cooper’s explanatory Twitter thread in this post last Friday. I knew the minute I read the thread that it was something special, because it accomplished a task that had seemed extraordinarily difficult: explaining the genesis of the last five or so years of step-by-step deepening alarm and disillusionment on the right in a way that almost anyone could understand it.

Later, Tucker Carlson read the thread on his show and it went viral. Trump even cited it in a speech. The author probably didn’t know quite what hit him, but now he’s written an essay appearing on Substack that explains the whole thing further.

Here’s one of many highlights:

For two years, Trump supporters had been called traitors and Russian bots for casting ballots for “Vladimir Putin’s c*ck holster.” They’d been subjected to a two-year gaslighting campaign by politicians, government agencies, and elite media. It took real fortitude to stand up to the unanimous mockery and scorn of these powerful institutions. But those institutions had gambled their power and credibility, and they’d lost, and now Trump supporters expected a reckoning. When no reckoning was forthcoming – when the Greenwalds, and Taibbis, and Matés of the world were not handed the New York Times’ revoked Pulitzers for correctly and courageously standing against the tsunami on the biggest political story in years – these people shed many illusions about how power really operates in their country.

Trump supporters know – I think everyone knows – that Donald Trump would have been impeached and probably indicted if Robert Mueller had proven that he’d paid a foreign spy to gather damaging information on Hillary Clinton from sources connected to Russian intelligence and disseminate that information in the press. Many of Trump’s own supporters wouldn’t have objected to his removal if that had happened. Of course that is exactly what the Clinton campaign actually did, yet there were no consequences for it. Indeed, there has been almost no criticism of it.

Trump supporters had gone from worrying the collusion might be real, to suspecting it might be fake, to seeing proof that it was all a scam. Then they watched as every institution – government agencies, the press, Congressional committees, academia – blew right past it and gaslit them for another year. To this day, something like half the country still believes that Trump was caught red-handed engaging in treason with Russia, and only escaped a public hanging because of a DOJ technicality regarding the indictment of sitting presidents. Most galling, conservatives suspect that within a few decades liberals will use their command over the culture to ensure that virtually everyone believes it. This is where people whose political identities have for decades been largely defined by a naive belief in what they learned in civics class began to see the outline of a Regime that crossed not only partisan, but all institutional boundaries. They’d been taught that America didn’t have Regimes, but what else was this thing they’d seen step out from the shadows to unite against their interloper president?

Much of Cooper’s essay repeats his Twitter thread, but in less chopped-up form. I think it’s masterful. But again, there are some things with which I disagree. For example, Cooper still makes a point with which I took issue in my initial post when I wrote:

I don’t agree with everything [Cooper writes]; in particular, I don’t think that “the same institutions would have taken opposite sides if it was a Tulsi Gabbard vs Jeb Bush election.” No; Gabbard may be an unusual Democrat with a few conservative values, but she’s a Democrat and the press would have supported her win if it was her vs. Jeb.

There’s something else Cooper writes with which I disagree: “Some Trump supporters, unfortunately, thought the license for political violence applied to everyone; the hundreds of them now sitting in federal jails learned the hard way that it wasn’t true.” That’s true of some who actually did engage in violence, but it wasn’t true of the “hundreds” sitting in federal jails. Most of the people locked up right now for January 6th offenses engaged in no violence at all.

[NOTE: I also recommend this essay by Roger Kimball on the topic of Cooper’s Twitter thread.]

LEGO crimes

The New Neo Posted on by

Here are some of the allegations against January 6th demonstrator Robert Morss:

Federal agents seized a plastic replica of the Capitol building from the Pennsylvania home of Robert Morss during his arrest on June 11. Justice Department officials are citing the Lego model as evidence in the criminal case against Morss for his involvement in the January 6 protest: “During his arrest, law enforcement recovered some clothing and other items that appear to match those he carried with him on the 6th—including a ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ flag, a neck gaiter, a military utility bag, a black tourniquet, and military fatigues. (Law enforcement also recoverd [sic] a fully constructed U.S. Capitol Lego set.)”

So wrote government prosecutors in a July 2 filing asking the D.C. District Court to deny Morss’ release while he awaits trial on nine counts, including assaulting police officers and disorderly conduct.

While dangerous criminals daily threaten the safety of innocent people in cities across the country—and many are released on bail—the FBI continues its nationwide manhunt for Capitol protesters while the Justice Department repeatedly petitions the court to keep the accused incarcerated for months on end.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, who despicably compares January 6 to the Oklahoma City bombing, recently bragged his office reached a “benchmark” of 500 arrests.

Please read the whole thing; it’s not just about Morss.

You will almost certainly be completely unsurprised to learn that the DOJ lied about the state of Morss’s LEGO set. It turns out that it was not assembled:

The US Capitol Lego set that federal authorities claimed to have recovered from an alleged rioter “fully constructed” was actually not assembled at all, according to new court papers.

An assistant US attorney in DC clarified in a letter filed on Friday that all 1,000-plus pieces of the plastic model seized from Robert Morss were still loose in the box.

“Please note that after a review of the photographs from the search, there appears to have been a miscommunication and that statement appears to be inaccurate,” prosecutors wrote.

“The Lego set was in a box and not fully constructed at the time of the search, as pictured below,” they added.

So, how’d they get it wrong? It’s not an easy error to make. And what else have they gotten wrong, and/or lied about?

Morss is charged with assaulting police officers. I wondered what the details were on that; did he hit anyone, for example? Here’s what I’ve found so far:

According to court documents and video footage, on Jan. 6, Morss was on the lower west terrace of the U.S. Capitol, where he led an assault on police and organized support from other rioters. In body-worn camera (BWC) footage, shortly after 2 p.m., Morss can be seen unsuccessfully trying to push through a fence separating the crowd from the Capitol while officers repeatedly asked the crowd to back up. As depicted in the BWC footage, after being asked to back up, Morss grabbed an officer’s baton and tried to rip it away. He is seen again attempting to rip items, including a metal fencing barricade and a helmet visor, from the hands of officers. At 2:57 p.m., Morss is visible in surveillance footage at the entrance of the tunnel to the Capitol. Morss is seen directly confronting officers, pulling against their shields and passing the stolen shields back into the crowd. Around 3:07 p.m., Morss yelled out, “Hey everyone with a shield, back up and organize! Make a shield wall! Organize right now and make a shield wall.”

Morss walked out of the tunnel around 3:14 p.m. and rejoined the crowd. At 3:48 p.m., he was captured on video near the archway entrance to the lower west terrace doors, where he and other rioters climbed through a broken window into the Capitol around 4:17 p.m. Video posted online shows rioters inside the room handing through the broken window furniture which other rioters used to attack officers guarding the lower west terrace doors. Morss can be seen around 4:30 p.m. inside the room and looking out after another window had been broken.

Is taking a baton from an officer and not using it on anyone “assaulting” the officer? It’s something, but is it assault?

And what if the LEGO set had been fully assembled? What would that have indicated of any import? Nothing. A LEGO set obviously is nothing like an architectural drawing. It gives no inside information beyond the most rudimentary nature of the building itself, familiar even to many children. In fact, it’s primarily a child’s toy.

It’s a ludicrous charge not worthy of mention even if true (which it wasn’t). We already know that Morss went to the Capitol to protest. Having an interest in the Capitol is a given, and meaningless. The charge is there in order to indicate some sort of thought crime in which even contemplating the building itself is considered evidence of some sort of evil intent.

And of course, as we already know, it was a lie anyway. Maybe the next thing the prosecutors will do is to claim that the fact that the LEGO set was still in pieces means that Morss actually wanted to blow up the building and render it destroyed – in small bits. No argument is too absurd for them.

Protests in Cuba: sanctions, COVID, and liberty

The New Neo Posted on by

What’s going on in Cuba?:

From the Malecón, Havana’s famous seawall near the old city, to small towns in Artemisa province and Palma Soriano, the second-largest city in Santiago de Cuba province, videos live-streamed on Facebook showed thousands of people walking and riding bikes and motorcycles along streets while chanting “Freedom!” “Down with Communism!” and “Patria y Vida” — Homeland and Life — which has become a battle cry among activists after a viral music video turned the revolutionary slogan “Homeland or Death” on its head.

“We are not afraid!” chanted Samantha Regalado while she recorded hundreds of people walking along a narrow street in Palma Soriano…

Images circulating on social media of angry crowds overturning police cars are unseen in a country where the communist government has kept a tight grip on the population for more than six decades.

Last time Cubans took to the streets to protest against the communist government was in 1994 and Fidel Castro was alive. But the uprising, known as the Maleconazo, only took place in Havana and didn’t last long, as the former Cuban leader quickly turned the demonstrations into a massive exodus after he opened Cuba’s maritime borders. Thousands of Cubans left the island in makeshift boats and rickety rafts, in what became known as the balsero crisis…

In an impromptu televised address later in the afternoon, Díaz-Canel blamed the protests on U.S. efforts to tighten the embargo, with the alleged intention to “provoke a social uprising” that would justify a military intervention.

Visibly upset and raising his voice, the Cuban leader warned that protesters would face a strong response and called “all revolutionaries” to confront them on the streets “with firmness and courage.”…

Cuba is in the throes of its worst economic contraction in over three decades, as chronic inefficiencies and paralyzing bureaucracy have gradually eroded the country’s production capacity, including the essential food and agriculture sectors. Trump-era sanctions have reduced access to vital economic lifelines like remittances, and foreign investment has plunged. Painful currency reforms this year have sent inflation soaring, and long lines for food have again become commonplace.

I don’t pretend to have any inside information on this, but here are my guesses: these protestors are generations removed from the initial Cuban revolution. The Castros are no longer in power – at least, in terms of holding the reins officially. The new leaders, even though under the sway of the same old Castroite forces, may be lacking that same combination of zeal, hardness, and charisma. Younger generations see the internet and know that they’re not doing well in Cuba, and some of them blame the many-decades-long regime much more than they blame any sanctions. Plus, among at least some people, there really is a hunger for liberty. What happens next to the protestors really depends on how hardline the regime is willing to get with them, and how much energy and coordination the protestors have.

Also, note the reference to “Trump-era sanctions.” The Biden administration initially reacted to the protests very tepidly, by issuing COVID-focused statements such as this one:

Biden himself finally spoke up with this:

“We stand with the Cuban people and their clarion call for freedom and relief from the tragic grip of the pandemic and from the decades of repression and economic suffering to which they have been subjected by Cuba’s authoritarian regime,” Biden said in a statement.

“The Cuban people are bravely asserting fundamental and universal rights. Those rights, including the right of peaceful protest and the right to freely determine their own future, must be respected,” Biden said.

“The United States calls on the Cuban regime to hear their people and serve their needs at this vital moment rather than enriching themselves.”

So Biden – or his speechwriters – have mentioned the regime and the call to freedom, putting COVID front and center again. I do predict that, if somehow the Cuban Communist regime were to collapse while Biden is president (something I do not think will happen), Biden and the Democrats would immediately take full credit for it. And yet the sanctions set up by Trump appear to have played a significant part in this so far, sanctions that many Democrats want removed (the link is from an article that appeared in March of 2021):

Eighty U.S. House of Representatives Democrats urged President Joe Biden on Tuesday to repeal Donald Trump’s “cruel” sanctions on Cuba and renew engagement, an early sign of support in Congress for easing the clamp-down on the Communist-run country…

Biden, a Democrat, vowed during his campaign to reverse policy shifts by the Republican Trump that “have inflicted harm on the Cuban people and done nothing to advance democracy and human rights.”

Trump’s tightening of the decades-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba has inflicted further pain on its ailing state-run economy, contributing to worsening shortages of food and medicine.

But Biden has not yet indicated whether he will fully revert to the historic detente initiated by Democratic former President Barack Obama when Biden was vice president.

So, Biden’s history is of supporting the lifting of sanctions, and this was part of his campaign. But nothing has yet happened on that score.

You may not like the song, but I think you’ll like the story

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember the piña colada song? I didn’t much care for it (or the earworm it sometimes gave me). I also didn’t even know its title was actually “Escape.”

But no matter. It was a huge hit and apparently has some staying power. Here the singer-songwriter Rupert Holmes tells us the story of how he came to write it and sing it, and I think you’ll be entertained:

[NOTE: Holmes (birth name: David Goldstein) has dual British and American citizenship. I see that, like so many people in the pop or rock music field (for example, the Bee Gees), he’s got a bandleader father and comes from a musical family, with a brother in the business as well.]

The majority of Americans don’t think Joe Biden is in charge

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a poll on the matter:

The national poll was released by the Convention of States Action in partnership with The Trafalgar Group. The poll, which was conducted toward the end of June, surveyed more than 1,000 likely voters for the upcoming 2022 midterm elections.

Key findings from the poll included:

56.5% of American voters do not believe that President Biden is fully executing the duties of his office, while 36.4% believe he is directing all policy and agenda
31.7% of Democrat voters do not believe that President Biden is fully executing the duties of his office, while 58.6% believe he is directing all policy and agenda
83.6% of Republican voters do not believe that President Biden is fully executing the duties of his office, while 11% believe he is directing all policy and agenda
58.4% of Independent voters do not believe that President Biden is fully executing the duties of his office, while 36.1% believe he is directing all policy and agenda

So the majority of Democrats think Biden’s in charge, the vast majority of Republicans think he’s not, and the majority of Independents think he’s not.

If you go to the poll results and take a closer look, you’ll see some things that are interesting (at least, I found them so). One is that respondents in the 18 to 24 age group had a lot more skepticism about Joe being in control. Another is that of all the ethnic groups queried, Hispanics were strongly skeptical of Joe’s control, right up there (almost) with white people. And males and females were almost identical in their responses.

I wish the poll takers had asked this followup question of those who don’t think Biden’s in charge: “Do you care?” I bet a lot of Democrats really aren’t perturbed by it, as long as some Democrats and/or leftists – and in particular, people who were in the Obama administration – are steering the ship. But of course that question was not asked.

What if the 2020 election audits end up revealing that Trump was actually the winner?

The New Neo Posted on by

In this American Thinker article, Andrew W. Coy points out that the Constitution is silent on the question of what would happen if, after a president has been declared the winner and taken office, it was discovered that he or she won through election fraud.

I have long thought that in such a scenario there would be no remedy that would undo the wrong. The remedy for such fraud after the person is already in office is to convict the perpetrators of fraud and to either fine them or send them to prison, or both.

Also, fraud is usually found in small, local elections, and it is difficult to prove even then. Nor does it need to have affected or changed the results of an election in order to be actionable fraud. Proving that without the fraud the results would have been different is even more difficult. But that is the situation that those challenging the idea that fraud occurred in 2020 would have the Trump-supporters prove in order to have any credibility at all, and even then it wouldn’t reverse things.

What might the now-ongoing audits show? Even with proof of huge errors and/or misconduct involving enough votes to have changed things, it would remain difficult to prove that those errors or that misconduct actually did change the results. Difficult, but not impossible. More likely, irregularities uncovered by any auditIt would only reveal that Trump might have otherwise won. But, as I stated earlier, I believe that the only remedy at that point would be a conviction for fraud of those who submitted fraudulent ballots (for example). However, it might be difficult to locate the perps, or to tell who it was who allowed bad signatures (to take another example). No one is going to imprison the whole vote-counting team at a certain site.

This is why fraud is so very tempting. This is why prevention is the only answer. If significant fraud is found to have occurred in 2020 – and if the media and social media don’t manage to cover up the news – at the very least it would strengthen the case for states’ passing laws that put in place tighter controls to prevent fraud in the future. And that’s about all it would do, I’m afraid. Would it anger the right even further than they’re angered now? I’m not sure, because the right is pretty angry already.

Here’s a pretty good summary of the last few years of political and intelligence and media developments, and the reaction of the right

The New Neo Posted on by

I keep looking for a simple way to tell the story – which is hard, because there have been so many incidents leading to the current stance of the right towards these things. But this Twitter thread (hat tip: Ace) does a pretty good job, and I recommend reading it and even sending it to a few open-minded liberals, if you know some.

The author doesn’t seem to be on the right – at least, he describes Trump supporters as though looking at them from the outside, albeit with some compassion and understanding. I don’t agree with everything in the thread; in particular, I don’t think that “the same institutions would have taken opposite sides if it was a Tulsi Gabbard vs Jeb Bush election.” No; Gabbard may be an unusual Democrat with a few conservative values, but she’s a Democrat and the press would have supported her win if it was her vs. Jeb.

However, the thread contains a lot of succinct descriptions of the course of events and of the reactions of the populist right. Just to take one example:

The reaction of Trump ppl to all this was not, “no fair!” That’s how they felt about Romney’s “binders of women” in 2012. This is different. Now they see, correctly, that every institution is captured by ppl who will use any means to exclude them from the political process.

Or:

The idea that the press is driven by ratings/sensationalism became untenable. If that were true, they’d be all over the Epstein story. The corporate press is the propaganda arm of the Regime they now see in outline. Nothing anyone says will ever make them unsee that, period…

This is profoundly disorienting. Many of them don’t know for certain whether ballots were faked in November 2020, but they know for absolute certain that the press, the FBI, etc would lie to them if there was. They have every reason to believe that, and it’s probably true…

They always claimed the media had liberal bias, fine, whatever. They still thought the press would admit truth if they were cornered. Now they don’t.

For me, the disillusionment described in that last paragraph above had already occurred some time early in the first decade of the 21st Century.

Nineteen Eighty-Four vs. Brave New World

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Zaphod” writes, of the Orwell work versus the Huxley work: “Funny thing is that Brave New World happened first.”

Well, yes and no. Brave New World was certainly written first, and I agree that it touched on many of the trends in science and propaganda that actually have come to pass, although of course not in exact detail. The book is exaggerated (so far, that is) in the amount of control and social engineering exerted.

Give them time,though; give them time.

But Orwell, in his dystopian masterpiece, was more or less describing something that had already happened – Soviet Russia – and grafting onto it two future developments, one connected with the advance of surveillance technology (he foresaw the telescreen rather than the internet, but he certainly correctly predicted ubiquitous surveillance cameras) and changes in language. My opinion is that it was in that amalgam that Orwell’s genius lay, particularly in his knowledge of the power of language and how the left was already using it to attempt to shape thought.

Orwell also correctly understood and described the leftist demand for holding in the mind as true two contradictory thoughts – or even an illogical thought such as 2 plus 2 equals 5 – if the party demanded it. He had already seen that at work with Communism.

I read both books in early adolescence and was fascinated by both. Orwell’s book terrified me to my core, but Huxley’s did not. It seemed imaginative and strange and sometimes even humorous, but also vaguely sinister. I didn’t quite understand its more subtle nature (subtle compared to Nineteen Eighty-Four, that is) at the time. I didn’t understand that Brave New World was about a different kind of assault on liberty, one that stroked and embraced rather than tortured and horrified, and was all the more seductive because of it.

One January 6th defendant fights back

The New Neo Posted on by

Andrea Widburg writes:

Following January 6, we’ve been reading stories about people imprisoned for months in solitary confinement and meekly accepting grotesque plea bargains just to get out of the government’s toils. Thomas Edward Caldwell and his attorney, however, are made of sterner stuff. It’s to be hoped that their fight against the federal government will open a new chapter in fighting back against the calumnies and prosecutions emanating from a hyper-partisan “justice” department.

Caldwell’s motion can be read here.

The January 6th detainees have been treated disproportionately harshly. This is necessary in order to further the Democrats’ narrative about January 6th. The DC court system with which the defendants must deal is enormously pro-left and pro-Democrat – and, as Caldwell’s motion asserts, only 5% of DC residents voted for Trump. Caldwell is asking that his case be moved to the Western District of Virginia because the DC pool is extremely tainted at this point (my prediction is that the request won’t be granted, however).

More here:

Caldwell is a 20-year U.S. Navy veteran who was apparently outside of the Capitol Building on January 6. He is charged with four felony counts: conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, entering and remaining in a restricted area, and tampering with documents or proceedings.

Here is what he is not, according to his attorney. Caldwell is not a “white supremacist,” nor a “white nationalist.” He is not a would-be murderer or a member of a militia group. He did not suggest “gassing” and “executing” members of Congress. He did not lead Oath Keepers, since, presumably, one would have to be an Oath Keeper to lead Oath Keepers. Fischer says his client is not a member…

The defense motion claims that prosecutors “knowingly disseminated false and incendiary claims” that Caldwell and others planned to sack the Capitol and “execute” people when they had no evidence for it – not even after conducting a “cyber colonoscopy” on cell phones and computers. There was no “plan,” Caldwell’s attorney claims. That allegation was based on “a rumor started by government bureaucrats attempting to cover up their incompetent leadership.”

The motion alleges, among other things, that these lies have tainted the DC jury pool. Some of these stories included the following:

…a CNN story claiming Caldwell was part of an “execution squad” that planned to “seal” congressional members in “tunnels under capital” [sic] and “turn on [the] gas” – the acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin gave a “reckless” “prejudicial and extrajudicial” interview intimating that Caldwell was part of a plot to overthrow the government…

Would-be jurors’ “psyches” were subject to an assault on their liberty, fear for their safety, and belief that they were imprisoned in an armed encampment … because they basically were, [Caldwell’s attorney] Fischer argues.

I can pretty much guarantee that 99% of the people I know – none of them potential DC jurors, however – believe that all of that, and more, is true not just of Caldwell but of the many hundreds of January 6th detainees. They probably also think that the half of the population which voted for Trump approves of the nefarious goings-on, with perhaps the small exception of yours truly.

Lies are very effective, especially when backed by the full weight of the government and the MSM.