Van Jones Speaks Truth About Political Violence

What's making these usually aggressive libs come out with tempering the violence?
Could it be the public is seeing liberal Dems for what they are and polling is reflecting this?

The left knows that assassinations work after what happened to Charlie Kirk, and that nothing will happen to them.

Maybe some of these people have some reasoning and some ability to comprehend what going on inside the Dem party and are slowly waking up to reality, at some point they can't deny what the left is trying to do and it will have bad consequences for them too, ALL the people behind this only care about are themselves, and for those not following will be made to disappear

quote:

---

What's making these usually aggressive libs come out with tempering the violence?

---

Political violence is the result of political extremism. The Left has spent the last twenty or so years cultivating their fringe elements into a movement. The further you get into the fringe, the more unstable (via being increasingly blindly loyal to their perceptions or reality and/or philosophy) they become. What I mean here is that a challenge to perceptions or philosophy becomes increasingly received as an aggressive attack on the individual themselves the further you go into the fringe. Challenge them too much or challenge too deep into the fringe, the more likely you are to guarantee violence.

For many, it's one thing to speak aggressively, but another thing completely to turn that into violent action.

The Left's mantra for decades has been to advocate for the marginalized. This stance has a limited shelf life so as time has marched on they've had to move deeper into their fringe to keep interest going. The instability of the fringe combined with their normal stance as being ostracized means that attention (read: validation) becomes everything to them. As they are increasingly validated, they become increasingly demanding that such validation grow (like making an addict then slowly giving them more and more drugs) to the point they become fanatical.

As that happens though, those closer to the middle begin to see what's happening. The closer to the middle, the sooner they see it and begin speaking out about it with early adopters being seen as "red-pilled" (Musk, Rogan, Brand, etc). As it continues, those increasingly further to the Left from the middle see the same thing and move (to a lesser extent) in the same manner (Maher, for instance). Whether consciously aware of it or not, they are toning down their rhetoric against the Right as a direct result the violence previous aggressive rhetoric has fomented.

The power elite of the Left is now in a tough position. They've exchanged their moderate base for the rabid fringe. They can't moderate themselves to draw those moderates back because the fringe (their new center) would tear them down and put themselves in charge. The time interval between that and building a new, more moderate Left, would see a lot of that moderate base move even more Right-ward in disappointment, disgust, outrage, betrayal, whatever, thus leaving them without a base. So they either have to work with the unpalatable loonies they have and retain power or completely lose power with only a hope of being able to rebuild to something lesser than what they have/had.

He coined the term “whitewash”. He’s a commie and is proud of it. The violence is delaying their takeover.

Well, Van should know. He's the one who had a break-down cry with his son when the world ended in 2016. I wonder if he had to get his best friend to act as a surrogate father w/ his wife.

quote:

---

He coined the term “whitewash”.

---

WHITELASH

oh and the WHCD woulda been DAAAAAAAAARK

quote:

---

Once again emphasizing that what David Mamet said almost two decades ago: In order for modern leftists and progressives to continue advancing a radical and extreme political ideology, they must pretend not to know things!

---

quote:

---

The Left's mantra for decades has been to advocate for the marginalized.

---

It's definitely how they portray their mantra.

But I don't believe it.

Their true mantra is to "stick it to the rich" under the guise of advocating for marginalized people.

quote:

---

Their true mantra is to "stick it to the rich" under the guise of advocating for marginalized people.

---

I disagree. I think many of the marginalized can be folded neatly into a group where that becomes the/a "solution," but not all of them (trannies, for instance). Identifying them as a marginalized group (can also be read as: "convincing them they are") is the first step. Without that, they can't get to their wealth-redistribution goal.

But... wealth-redistribution is only part of their overall stance of needing them (and thus the "more government" they represent) to make everything "fair."