Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
If the Democratic National Committee and Black Lives Matter were signed to Netflix to co-produce a soap opera, the result would be pretty much what the first few days of the January 6th Committee have been. The first day of the hearings featured more weeping men than the Stonewall Inn on the day Judy Garland died. There were also accusations that protesters were hurling racist slurs at the Capitol police, and surely the Capitol Police are withholding the video of this only because it would be too inflammatory.
Liz Cheney, morphing into a combination of Madame DeFarge and Lucille Bluth (but without the late Jessica Walter’s brilliant comedic timing), demands “every minute of that day in the White House: every phone call, every conversation, every meeting leading up to, during and after the attack.” So much for this not being about Trump.
By rejecting Republican members who might have offered independent perspectives, who might have deviated from the Official Narrative, the Democrats made it clear that this was going to be an exercise, not in truth-seeking, but in narrative reinforcement. The absence of any potential dissent on the committee is one indication of its partisan political nature, but it is not the only one. If the committee were really interested in getting to the truth, then there is one group of witnesses who would be expected to testify, but that is conspicuously absent from any planned hearings.
The protesters themselves.
In order to understand “what happened,” the actions and intentions of the protesters themselves are a key piece of the puzzle. It would make sense to ask why they were there, what their intentions were, and what they saw on that day.
But they are not going to be interviewed, and it’s not hard to figure out why.
There is an Official Narrative in place, reinforced by the state-adjacent media: The protesters are domestic terrorists who stormed the Capitol and threatened the lives of everyone inside in order to stage a violent coup that was worse than 9-11, Pearl Harbor, and Season 8 of Game of Thrones combined.
If they were to talk to the protesters, a different narrative might emerge. Instead of dangerous terrorists carrying out a violent coup, they might be shown as ordinary Americans frustrated with a political elite that no longer represents them, that actively works against them in favor of globalist oligarchs. The public might come to understand and sympathize with them.
That cannot be allowed to happen. And so the people who “stormed the Capitol” that day sit in solitary confinement, indefinitely, without trials, mostly on non-violent “trespassing” charges, while the FBI hounds their families and associates like they were all Richard Jewell. Politicians pontificate on the threat of dangerous “domestic terrorism” and propose – unsurprisingly – a vastly expanded surveillance state and new Government powers to counter it.
Once again, it’s the inverse of the media’s treatment of BLM/Antifa rioters, whose Official Narrative was that they were as brave and noble as the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy, and their protests … where buildings were burned, people were murdered, and businesses smashed and looted… were “mostly peaceful.” You seldom heard the media speak to actual Antifas because that would likewise have imperiled the narrative.
They also told us riots were the language of the unheard. Maybe they were right.Published in