Non-violent grass roots reform and Democracy: Was Insurrection Intentionally allowed? Incredible Incompetence? Or Staged?

There's no doubt that the police could have prevented the "capitol insurrection," after all, they routinely provide much more security for many other protests and never let them get that far! Some of the most obvious recent examples include the Black Lives Matter protests that have been going on for years, including the protest at the Lincoln Memorial where the National Guard was called in last June, pictured above.

For some reason, even though the police seized at least a dozen fire arms, and suspected there were more, two pipe bombs Molotov cocktails, a crossbow, and several other weapons, few if any of the protesters were brandishing guns and the only shots fired, that I know of, were fired by the police, which killed Ashli Babbit, an unarmed protester. The police were incredibly incompetent at stopping them from raiding the Capitol with few if any firearms;yet, they were incredibly effective at seizing large amounts of weapons with little or no violence. They claim there were almost certainly many more weapons they never found, yet no one brandished them or attempted to kill anyone, even though the media tells us that's exactly what they intended to do.

There were also a large percentage of veterans involved in the insurrection, including at least one or two from military intelligence organizations, which should be called espionage organizations, and at least thirty-nine cops, from at least eighteen states among the protesters or rioters, and at least one Capitol police officer that seemed sympathetic to the rioters, even posing for a selfie with them. At least two Capitol police officers were suspended, including the one that took a selfie with a protester, and ten others investigated.

Not surprisingly this has led some people to believe that this may have been an inside job, with some justification, including the following article, although there is a possibility that, if there was a conspiracy to allow the raiding of the Capitol, it could actually be much larger:

The unprotected Capitol was an inside job| COMMENTARY by Robert Benjamin 01/11/2021

Almost 50 years ago, in May 1971, Vietnam War protest leaders called for “May Day” protests in Washington, D.C. If the federal government would not stop the war, then the nation’s capital would be brought to a standstill — by non-violently clogging its major intersections with thousands of sitting protesters. That seemed like a grand idea to some college buddies and me. We didn’t think twice about driving to the district to join in.

It didn’t seem like a good idea, however, to the federal government under President Nixon. At least 10,000 military troops (including 4,000 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Battalion) and an almost like number of federal agents and police from the District and surrounding jurisdictions were waiting for us and the estimated 40,000 other protesters that initially amassed.

I saw no unruly acts by protesters, but on the first big day of protests — Monday, May 3 — tear gas was widely deployed and security forces drove motorcycles at those of us sitting in the streets, forcing many of us to jump to our feet. Many were chased and detained while just walking on the District’s sidewalks.

We then were quickly herded into smaller groups to board dozens of yellow school buses waiting nearby, to be driven to and corralled in the Washington Coliseum and a large, fenced football field next to RFK Stadium. In all, more than 12,600 people were arrested that day and over the next two days — distressingly swiftly and efficiently, albeit illegally in most cases. I and many others were charged with disorderly conduct, charges that largely were dismissed.

My point is this: When it comes to dealing with even just potentially unruly protesters in the District — let alone insurrectionists, such as we saw Wednesday at the Capitol — federal authorities have firmly had a playbook for a half century or more. (Their actions in 1971 were outlined in a federal plan, dubbed “Operation Garden Plot,” developed in the 1960s to combat potential civil disorders.)

There now are widespread calls for a much a needed investigation into how the domestic terrorists could so easily have entered the Capitol to cause mayhem. And there are repeated comparisons to the overwhelming responses of authorities to much more recent and peaceful protests than the “May Day” actions, such as those by Black Lives Matter and climate activists.

We need an investigation, of course, but there’s likely little mystery here. The head of the Capitol police force and the sergeants of arms of both the Senate and the House have resigned. Indeed, these men appear to have failed in their duties, but the failure to secure the Capitol likely rests at the doorstep of the Defense Department — led by a recently appointed, unqualified toady of President Donald Trump, Christopher Miller — if not the White House.

Not only did the Pentagon not have troops or National Guard units on standby, evidence has emerged that the DOD stalled in responding to urgent requests to send in forces. President Trump claimed Thursday that he called in the National Guard, but reports indicate he didn’t lift a finger in that direction; Vice President Mike Pence eventually had to do it.

And in a news conference Thursday, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan recounted how he tried in vain to get the top level of the DOD to authorize sending in the Maryland National Guard to counter the insurrection, but they did not even answer his phone calls. Finally, after a long wait, the secretary of the Army gave him authorization, Mr. Hogan said.

The lack of preparation and the delayed response were not mere bureaucratic miscues. They were intentional. The Washington Post reported Thursday that the “Pentagon placed tight limits on the D.C. National Guard ahead of pro-Trump protests this week, trying to ensure the use of military force remained constrained,” citing DOD memos issued Monday and Tuesday in advance of the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol. Complete article

Robert Benjamin wasn't the only one making a case that this insurrection was an inside job; Glynn Wilson cites the same evidence and more in, Inside Job: Were the U.S. Military and Capitol Police Ordered to ‘Stand Down’ to Allow Trump’s Mob to Storm the Capitol? 01/11/2021, to make the case that this was a serious attempt to overthrow the government, although it's hard to imagine they could have possibly believed that it could succeed, even though they did manage to withhold the police or troops necessary to prevent them from getting in. Inevitably within a few hours there were massive amounts of troops capable of repelling the protesters, with little incident; and it should have been considered inevitable that this would happen.

The Oregon Republican Party went even further and called Capitol riot a 'false flag' operation to discredit GOP, silence Trump supporters. 01/26/2021 This claim hardly seems to pass the laugh test; if this was a "false flag" carried out by Democrats or their allies, how could they get Trump to make his speech virtually calling for the insurrection; and how could the Democrats manage to get all these right wingers to invade the Capital? If this was a "false flag" operation they would have had to get the cooperation of the Republicans to help set themselves up.

Most of these theories almost certainly need work if they're close to the truth; however, one absurd thing after another keep happening and the media jumps from one obsession du jour to another, even though they have enough research to show how to prevent many disasters, even if the evidence for a "false flag" is inadequate. So there is enough evidence to show something seriously wrong is going on, either an incredible amount of corruption and incompetence, or perhaps even a real conspiracy, although the details haven't all been exposed.

There's also no doubt that Trump at least partly incited the riot, by denying that he lost for weeks, even though his denials were obvious lies to anyone with a minimal amount of critical thinking, which doesn't include many of his cult followers. If that isn't enough evidence, then his speech on the morning of the riot, Transcript of Trump's Speech at Rally Before US Capitol Riot 01/13/2021 where he says "Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. ....... Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

But that doesn't explain why anyone in their right mind would believe anything Donald Trump says, including his claims that he would "drain the swamp," when he did the exact opposite while in office, and his record of massive amounts of scandals before being elected, including "Trump University," where he admitted in court that it was a fraud. Many of them supposedly believed that building a wall between Mexico and the United States would actually solve problems, which was absurd enough, but they also believed that "Mexico is going to pay for it," which of course they didn't. He also claimed during his Jan. 6 speech that, "You know, the wall is built," which was false; most of the wall built happened before he took office, and the majority of construction while he was in office was building replacement walls for sections that needed repair with only about forty-seven miles of new walls.

The truth of the matter is that sociologists have been studying demagogues and how to manipulate the masses for decades, if not thousands of years going back to the days of ancient Rome, Greece and perhaps even Egypt. Modern academic research dates back at least to the fifties or sixties when Irving Janis began studying groupthink and two of his students Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo began studying under him and eventually carried out the "Obedience to Authority" and "Stanford Prison Experiment." I went into these research projects in a couple previous articles including Eli Roth’s Milgram/Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize and Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment which explains that they studied why people blindly obeyed authorities and how to prevent it; although they also studied methods to indoctrinate people to ensure they would obey instead of questioning authority. These articles explain that this research was supported by the military and possibly the CIA; however, the military isn't in the practice of teaching cadets to question authority, they're in the practice of teaching blind obedience, and there are clear parallels with this research and boot camp indoctrination tactics, indicating they've been using it for all the wrong reasons.

There may be more of this in Irving Janis "Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes" 1982. This research isn't what I would consider adequate to prove that they could carry out a sophisticated "false flag" operation using indoctrination methods; however, if they had done a much better job teaching the general public, not just people in the academic world, how these indoctrination tactics work, they could have made this far less likely and taught people how not to fall for manipulative efforts to teach blind obedience or fall for political demagogues.

There's good reason to believe that the political establishment has learned to create propaganda ensuring that only candidates supported by oligarchs get media coverage and to manipulate crowds and if that doesn't work, rig elections at the polls as I explained previously in Psst, Elections Were Rigged By Oligarchy not Russia & Evidence Was Reported Before It Happened! This article explains that rigging media coverage and elections at the polls is routine, even if I seriously doubt there could be anything to Trump's claims that Biden stole the election from him. The most important way they rig elections is by giving obsession coverage to candidates supported by the establishment years before the election presenting Hillary Clinton as the inevitable nominee, even though she was extremely unpopular, in 2016, and they were in the process or repeating this with Joe Biden at the time of that article, even though he was also extremely unpopular.

This article also explains how Trump used "section leaders" including Mike Pence’s nephew, John Pence to help control and lead the crowds at his rallies. This practice could have been developed with the help of the sociology research by Milgram, Zimbardo, Janis and more from other academics, even if they didn't directly participate in it. Once they do the research, they make it available to others in the academic world so they can do what they want with it to develop indoctrination tactics. There was public evidence indicating the Trump campaign were using this tactic, but it's almost guaranteed that other political campaigns, including Democrats like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have also used these tactics. Even though this may make a "false flag" conspiracy theory a little more likely, most rational skeptics wouldn't consider it adequate evidence, and I wouldn't blame them.

Whether your a skeptic, conspiracy theorist, or a little of both, you should focus on the best research that doesn't rely on possibly unreliable theories to come to conclusions. A good conspiracy theorist should also be a rational skeptic, as I've said in the past, and start with things that can be explained from reliable sources, and perhaps only resorting to conspiracy theories when that isn't adequate to explain unsolved mysteries, which may happen at times. One Trump supporter that has been covered in the traditional media came close to the point when he complained about how the traditional political establishment wasn't helping them going on to say "the only one helping us is us," which may have sounded good to him, although I can't imagine how he came to the conclusion that Trump was helping the working class, since he did as much, if not more as traditional candidates to rig the economy for the wealthy at the expense of the working class. But, when the working class fell for one political scam after another they were looking for someone to help them and fell for Trump's demagoguery. If the traditional political establishment did far more to address legitimate social concerns Trump's supporters wouldn't have been driven to desperate measures.

If you go to the library or check academic journals or alternative media, you can find some of the best research to solve many social problems; however if you check traditional commercial media or the discussion by the political establishment, it may become clear that they're not paying attention to the best research, instead relying on ideological beliefs to make their decisions and pushing policies that rig the economy for wealthy campaign donors, while ignoring good research. This isn't an irrational conspiracy theory, since the information leading to this conclusion isn't secret and can be confirmed independently. In many cases we can compare our policies to the policies of other countries which have done a much better job addressing social problems and they have far less problems with crime, poverty, homelessness, extremists like the ones that stormed the Capitol, and many other social problems. They also have a higher quality of life, including access to better education, child care, health care and other social programs that have been very effective, yet our media doesn't report on it.

I've gone into may of these social problems in several previous articles, which often show that we have good research that shows how to solve them, and often evidence to show that programs to solve them are far less expensive than ignoring social problems including Ten Ways To Reduce Violence, Backed Up By Research which explains how reducing child abuse leads to much less violence later in life, improving education, child care reducing poverty & income inequality all help reduce violence. This is all backed up by good research from many academic sources and European countries that base their policies on good science have far less violence than we do. Another article, Must We Hate? Must We Beat Children? explains how early child abuse leads to increased amount of racism, and the same argument can be made that if we reduce child abuse extremists like those that stormed the Capitol would be far less likely, yet this research isn't in the mainstream media or used to make political decisions.

In Machiavellian Ideology Ignores Real Science; I explained how Portugal has shown that it's far less expensive to treat drug addiction than it is to criminalize it and Finland has shown it's far less expensive to house the homeless than to deal with the social consequences afterwards, and there's additional research from within the United States to show these policies are more effective, yet, once again this research isn't covered by mainstream media and policies aren't based on it. In Epidemic of abandoned babies & possibly mothers I explained how we have the research available to reduce abandoned children or desperate parents that go to even worse extremes and kill their own child, which is also ignored by the media and politicians. In United States Coups & Entrapment of Immigrants I explained how our foreign policy is almost entirely based on lies, and that the traditional media often admits it for brief periods of times, although they do so for one incident at a time as if it's isolated before going back to deceptive propaganda presenting our country as the leader of the free world. The traditional media practically never reports on the fact that many of these "illegal aliens" are forced into desperation by coups and wars inspired by our own government, which means they're victims of our politicians, not criminals as the media often portrays them, which also contributes to problems with crime or prejudices by right wing extremists.

There's also overwhelming evidence to show that the political establishment has been far easier on white supremicists, even when they're much more violent, than they are on Balack Lives Matter, envirnmentalists, Occuppy Wall Street, and many other progressive protesters. And this is bipartisan enforcement, which included many protests during the Obama administration. Amazingly, even President Biden agreed with this, although he declined to remind people of how the police cracked down on many protesters while he was vice president. This wasn't limited to the response to the Capitol riots; white supremicists also faced much less resistance in several protests at State Capitols, including one at the Michigan State Capitol a few months ago.

All of this is backed up by credible evidence which the media practically never covers. There should be plenty that progressives and skeptics can agree on that needs to be reformed; yet, there's little or no help from the political establishment which is constantly ignoring, or worse suppressing the best research showing how to solve social problems and make these riots and political instability far less common. Not surprisingly many conspiracy theorists have concluded that the political establishment is intentionally encouraging instability as an excuse to clamp down on our civil rights.

This doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a real far-fetched conspiracy, of some sort, though; perhaps, considering the non-stop insanity from the political establishment, when many of them must know how to avoid many of these disasters indicates that there really is one. Furthermore, there's no doubt that all the most powerful institutions controlling our society are controlled by a fraction of one percent of the public, and they routinely rig the economy in their own favor, while the working class often fights among themselves.

Another major issue to consider is that rigging the economy to such a bizarre extreme in their own favor does little or nothing to improve their own quality of life. It's as if they're only interested in "power for the sake of power" as George Orwell said in 1984, even if it inevitably destroys the entire society, including the rich, which is it will with the epidemic amount of environmental destruction they're profiting from and many other social problems that will even help destroy the wealthy eventually.

Are those controlling our society suicidal? They have to know that they have to reverse Climate Change and repair the environment in at least a large enough part of the world to save themselves, yet tehy're not doing this. Biden recently sounded like he was going to act despite a long record of doing the opposite, but, not surprisingly he already began approving more oil drilling raising doubts about this.

What ever their motive might be, it must be huge. What could be so important that the oligarchs would allow this much insanity?

One theory I came up with is based on the possibility that they may being influenced by aliens who according to Philip Corso, author of "The Day After Roswell," have been provided technology which he allegedly helped reverse engineer by sharing with many large corporations. If this is the case then that is having a major impact on every aspect of our society and it's giving an enormous amount of political power to those that control the technology which is being used to corrupt our government. It also means that these people know how to avoid all this insanity and much more, yet choose not to. This would of course lead to many other questions, which may require inside information to answer, but it might be a start to explain what's going on.

Furthermore, if these aliens do exist, and if they've been here for thousands of years, which some evidence shows is a possibility, then there might be a possibility they've influenced our early development, including religion and some of the alleged prophecies including Revelations. Most theories about this are seriously flawed, however, after going into some more rational conspiracy theories in Yes Virginia There Is A Trump And Clinton Conspiracy I acknowledged that there were a surprising number of similarities in 2016 between the presidential elections, which were insane and some of the things in the book of revelations, although there were also many flaws. If you Google "Is Donald Trump the Antichrist?" you'll find that many other people raised the same questions, although they came up with different theories with many more flaws of their own. Yet, what ever is going on, the Trump presidency has been even more insane since then, often with more similarities to biblical prophecy instead of exposing this theory for the fraud that it should be; therefore, even though there are still serious flaws with it, I can't completely rule out the possibility that some of it might be close to the truth.

In another article, Is Trump A Massive CIA PsyOp?, I followed up on this theory with some additional details, including some speculation by Caitlin Johnstone that QAnon might actually be a CIA PsyOp. If this is the case then it increases the possibility that this really was a stage "false flag" conspiracy of some sort, for some bizarre reason, which would have to be enormous. If that enormous reason does exist, and it's not related to sharing of alien technology, then I can't imagine what it could be; the ones other conspiracy theorist have come up with don't stand up to scrutiny.

If there is something to this bizarre conspiracy theory, then one of the possibilities that I've considered in previous articles is the possibility that they've been conducting an enormous amount of research on many things, including developing computer technology, propulsion to travel through space, medical research, possibly even including manipulating DNA and weather control research. If that's the case, and if they're intentionally allowing Climate Change as a result of this, then there's a possibility they may want to reverse it when, and only when, it suits their own purposes. If this is the case they're playing an insane game of chicken with the survival of this planet.

With or without this bizarre conspiracy theory there should be no doubt that we have to do far more to protect the environment and reverse the damage being done by Climate Change and other forms of environmental destruction. For a couple days it seemed as if Biden might be planning on doing far more to protect the environment than his past record indicated we could expect. But instead of backing up his words with action he already indicated he would continue expanding drilling.

Focusing on the best available science on any given subject should be considered a good idea, whether you're a skeptic or open minded enough to consider some conspiracy theories; however, the best science on any given subject is almost completely absent from traditional media and the political discussion. This is why more people need to look to other sources, including libraries, academic journals and alternative media. It's also why, even skeptics shouldn't rush to dismiss the more rational conspiracy theories, since there has to be a good reason why the media isn't covering good science and politicians aren't basing decisions on it.