Jan 6: They Don't Like It Up Them

On January 1, 2022, The New York Times published a mournful editorial about the January 6 riots from last year: "Every Day is Jan. 6 Now." Interestingly, the article URL contains the text "january-6-attack-committee."

It's worth reading because it rehearses every regime talking point you can imagine, and a few you hadn't thought of.

But really, as a racist-sexist-homophobe of the worst kind, I have to ask: where were you lordly lords at The New York Times for the last 50 years, where our rulers Newspeaked the language of riots and killing to speak of street violence by groups favored by the regime as "demonstrations", "protests", "peaceful protests." While calling an ordinary riot by regime opponents an "armed insurrection."

And it's a "tell" to speak of the January 6 Committee as a "bipartisan committee in the House of Representatives" and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) as "one of the vanishingly few Republicans in Congress who remain committed to empirical reality and representative democracy" tells us hicks a heck of a lot more about the regime's sanity than it tells your loyal liberal readers about the mournful state of the world, NYT.

"Empirical reality"? What? Why that's the most racist-sexist-homophobic white supremacist thing I've read in a while. Don't you know it's "lived experience" now, NYT? Go ask Nikole Hannah-Jones if you are confused.

Like I say. the editorial is a "tell." It tells us that the knightly knights of our regime are scared. They are looking at America and don't feel confident, don't feel in charge, as in the olden time. There are strange and frightful stirrings that just don't make sense to the good Americans that read The New York Times.

Or, as Corporal Jones is wont to say in Dad's Army, "they don't like it up them."

Yep. It's one thing to have The Kidz protesting the Vietnam War in the Sixties, and Negroes burning down Detroit. And it's OK for AntiFa to ruin Portland, Oregon. But oh dear, the very idea of ordinary Americans flooding through the Capitol, that until yesterday we all thought was safely protected with tilt-up vehicle barriers as far as the eye could see...

In a way, the NYT's quivering concern is comical. Whaddya think politics is all about, NYT? Maybe you should do a bit of reading. Politics is always on the edge of violence. The whole point of political rallies and demonstrations and "peaceful protests" is to do a show of force, as in, "this is how many people we can put into the streets today. Next time it may not be so peaceful."

If you do not understand that, NYT, then you need to get another job.

See, NYT, if you guys and gals had half a brain you might wonder why it is that the Republican Party has gone off the rails of nice NYT respectability. It could be that the party has been taken over by a cult of mad racist-sexist-homophobes. Or it could be that Republican elected officials have been responding to an organic movement of Americans that feel the current regime is unjust and illegitimate.

But which is it? If it is the first, then you can lock 'em all up and let them rot in jail. But if the currents in the GOP represent a genuine organic response to an experience of injustice among a large section of society, then maybe a wise ruling class should pay attention.

If you have read a chap like Gaetano Mosca and his book The Ruling Class you will have noted that he doesn't think that the ruled should just be pushed around by the rulers. He is conscious that the ruled need to be managed, and that the rulers need to understand what ordinary people are thinking and feeling. Indeed, he writes that a good ruling class should promote people from below to refresh itself.

I don't see any of the notions from Mosca in NYT rhetoric. I wonder why.

Of course, NYT, if you read my stuff you would understand what is going on. You would nod at my maxim "there is no such thing as justice, only injustice." You would understand the import of "Government is an armed minority, occupying territory, and taxing the inhabitants thereof to reward its supporters." You would flinch a little at the truth of "Government is force plus loot and plunder."

And, having read Carl Schmitt and The Concept of the Political you would be haunted by his notion that the political is the friend-enemy distinction, that Curtis Yarvin reduces to "there is no politics without an enemy."

See, NYT, the more government, the more that the rulers are taxing people to give money to other people. You think that maybe a few people would think that is unjust? How would you know?

And, for you chaps to sit there in your skyscraper and be shocked, shocked that there are people that disagree with you and are organizing politically to Do Something about it betrays a tragic -- or comical -- lack of awareness.

You chaps really should get out more. I'm available for coffee most days.