The repellent pickup artist and wannabe philosopher Roosh Valizadeh startled even those of us who have been paying close attention to his ongoing terribleness by declaring in a blog post last August that it was “just a matter of time” before one of his fans loses it and goes on a murderous shooting rampage.
His plan to deal with this horrific possibility, which he regards as pretty much an eventuality? An “emergency protocol” that he and his supporters could follow, not to try to stop such a rampage before it happens, but to make sure that such a shooting wouldn’t make Roosh look too bad. Among other things, he suggested that his fans refrain from posting too many jokey animated gifs after a mass shooting by one of their number because “the world will be watching us.”
Now Roosh is recommending a similar “emergency action plan for when a Trump supporter murders a leftist.”
And yes, those are his exact words. Roosh continues:
It’s probably going to happen that a Trump supporter is threatened with his life by a mob of leftists and acts in legal self-defense. Even though he will be legally excused for the killing, the media will go crazy and start up with the “Trump has started a holocaust” rhetoric.
Yes, how unreasonable it would be to connect Trump’s repeated instigation of violence to an act of violence by one of his fans!
Oh, sorry, not violence. “Self defense.”
Trump must immediately denounce the violence and re-frame the issue as a man using force to defend his life or family, adding that this is why the Second Amendment is so important for all Americans.
And what if the murder weren’t an act of self-defense by someone who feared for their life?
If the use of violence by a Trump supporter is in no way justifiable from a legal self-defense standpoint and is possibly even a false flag attack, Trump should condemn the act and make a visible monetary donation to the health care costs of the victim, stating how as President he will heal the nation and prevent such attacks from even occurring.
Apparently Trump has some sort of magical power to make all murders cease with a wave of the hand and a shpritz of the Aqua Net.
In addition to providing this “emergency action plan” in case of murder, Roosh helpfully provides Trump and his campaign staff with some “talking points” they can use if the violence doesn’t lead to death.
“We have high energy while the left has criminal energy. They are trying to use violence to stop us from making America great again. Their leading candidate has the most criminal energy of all!”
Uh, that “low energy” thing worked on Jeb Bush because he walked around like a sad Charlie Brown; it was clear that he’d rather be anywhere than on the campaign trail. Is “criminal energy’ even a thing?
“Why are Hillary supporters so ready to use violence? Where did they get that criminal energy from? We can only wonder!”
Again with the “criminal energy.” Not going to work, dude.
“If you are confronted by an unstable liberal, extract yourself to safety. De-escalate the situation. Chicago has shown they do not want to have a logical debate on how to make America great again.”
You know, I’m going to set aside the fact that Roosh is talking about liberals as if they were rabid beavers. And the bit about liberals not wanting to have a “logical debate.” Because that “de-escalate the situation” is good. Very good.
Use this one, Mr. Trump. Tell your supporters to de-escalate, instead of fantasizing about punching protesters in the face yourself. Tell them to de-escalate, instead of telling them you’ll “pay for the legal fees, I promise” if they “knock the crap out of” any protesters in their reach.
Trump is really the only one who has sway with these people, the only one who could actually, through his words, help to reign in the wave of violence he has unleashed. But instead of telling his followers to “de-escalate,” he keeps escalating his own rhetoric. Now he’s “predicting” — that is, threatening — riots if he’s not the Republican nominee.
Will a Trump supporter end up killing a leftist? I don’t know. But I do know that if Trump keeps excusing, enabling, and at times directly inciting violence, more people are going to get hurt.
The rules on incitement in the US are pretty clear. You have to prove he had foreknowledge that something he said will lead to IMMEDIATE harm.
like, if he literally said at a rally… “You, you there in the front with the glasses and Trump cap… see that protestor over there? Yeah… go beat the crap out of him”
and if said cap wearing drumpf supporter went ahead and did just that… THEN you have clear grounds for incitement.
Otherwise?
very unlikely he would get charged.
In a way, it’s a good thing incitement rules are so strict, or the limits to free speech might be a bit more troublesome than most would like.
still… when he said he would pay the legal fees of anyone who beat the crap out of protestors… that’s pretty damn close to the line, especially given that right after he said that… someone DID.
so… um, yeah. it’s certainly as close to incitement as I have ever seen an american politician, let alone a POTUS candidate, get to incitement.
Redbull. Lots and lots of Redbull. Otherwise it would be very hard for Trump fans to stay up all night making racist memes involving anime girls and Nazi symbolism to post on Twitter.
It feels like we’re in a Stephen King Movie staring Christopher Walken.
“Criminal energy” sounds like a line from a Powerthirst commercial.
@Flora
It’s projection. Remember the SPJ Airplay thing, where a #Gater pretended to be a feminist and called in a bomb threat on other #Gaters to make feminists look bad?
Remember, these people think they’re so important and awesome and threatening. They want to think they’re so much so, in fact, that we would do exactly that to stop them.
@Flora:
“False flag operation” is right-wingese for “bad thing not immediately blameable on Obama.”
Actual false flag operations are vanishingly rare, Operation Susannah and the Kurcha Incident being the only two genuine cases I can think of during the 20th century, but the idea of them has got into the paranoid community and festered. It plays into their fear that all information channels are being manipulated by a supremely powerful opposition which acts only through front organisations. It’s a fear that the moder paranoid community inherited from their forebears who were terrified of Communists, and before that those who were terrified of Catholics, Freemasons and Jews.
Let’s see…totally without a clue about what the Second Amendment means? Check. Totally without a clue about the legal definition of “self defense”? Check. Totally in denial about what anyone with eyes can see? Check, and double-check.
What else is there?…Oh yeah. Totally lives in Mom’s basement. Big Check.
And it’s been reported that he may pay the expenses of the guy who sucker-punched the protester and who has said of that protester “Next time we see him, we might have to kill him.”
This is the presidential candidate who says “there should be consequences” – but for peaceful protesters, not for his violent supporters.
Anyone else wondering how did we get to this?
Incidentally, anyone else notice how we’ve segued from Bernie supporters being violent protesters by, um, standing in a crowded hall holding a Bernie poster to it being violent Hillary supporters who might provoke a law-abiding Trumpiste to shoot them dead? That’s a change which seems to have happened since Tuesday’s primaries.
If you criminalize cannabis, only criminals will have high energy.
… It just occurred to me. The Clintons are well-known for being popular with black voters; this “Legal self-defense” stuff is a Trayvon/#BLM dog whistle, isn’t it.
I am not observant before my morning coffee.
*downloads a song illegally*
SURGING WITH CRIMINAL ENERGY
“If I’m not the nominee, there will be violence” is pretty much the same script as “If women don’t give us sex, there will be shooting sprees”.
Ditto “violent left wingers” and “look what you made me do”.
The last thing the world needs is an Abuser-In-Chief with access to the White House nuclear launch codes.
Do they have an emergency action plan for when one of his victims kills Roosh?
I assume they have to. Domineering assholes love having a martyr available to excuse what they were already doing anyway.
Of course, it’s Roosh’s site and he’s a narcissist so I doubt he cares what happens to his flock once he is gone. Maybe he discourages those types of discussion.
Hello.
In France, we had the so-called “Raimbow Warrior” case.
It is a PUA concept (what did you expect from Roosh ?). It is a bit the same thing as the “mojo” or the “vibe”. It is supposed to mean you are mentally and physically at your best, optimistic, playfull and positive mood, and so on. Obviously, “low energy” is when you are tired, in a bad mood, and so on, so not fully ready for “the Game”.
“Criminal energy” is something he made up. I suppose it is something when you are like to cross the borders while not being white enough, when you do jobs the white do not want to do but still they are complaining you steal their job, when women say no to your pick-up action, or even pour beer on you, when homosexual people kiss or marry… Anything that may appear criminal to them, unlike shooting someone in supposed self-defense.
Have a nice day.
In german there is the term “Kriminelle Energie”, referring to a capacity and willingness to devote considerable effort to a criminal endeavor.
It also implies a predilection for crime.
Presumably actual false flags are still rare because, if you’re that unethical, you can always just tell your followers it happened without actually doing it, and if your followers are that gullible, they’ll believe you.
No. I think the path has been rather clear, starting at least with Ronald Reagan (who, to be fair, probably wouldn’t condone any of this, and who doesn’t quite fit the picture these folks paint of him). Maybe back to Dick Nixon and his southern strategy – in other words, feed the hate to win votes. Sooner or later, the people who hate that intensely will move on from voting and start running for office.
@occasional reader:
I think I phrased that poorly. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior was done by covert deniable agents in defiance of national and international law, like most espionage activities. In that respect it was a “false flag” operation, yes.
However, when members of the paranoid community speak of “false flags”, they usually refer to acts which are not to the direct benefit of the agency suspected of committing them, but rather to atrocities which they use to justify their actions. A good example of this is the belief that the American government carried out the Charleston massacre in order to provide public backing for its removal of the Confederate flag. An example that actually happened is Operation Susannah, and an example that there’s some doubt about might be the Reichstag Fire.
Acts like the Rainbow Warrior attack, which are clearly to the benefit of the power which ordered them carried out, no doubt happen every day despite being illegal. The other sort, where an atrocity is committed that’s to nobody’s benefit but provides political cover for further action, are the ones which I referred to as being almost mythically rare.
For some reason, extremists are very fond of using them as an explanation despite them being that unlikely. Perhaps they’re so used to seeing the Illuminati behind every lamppost that they’ve conditioned themselves to think of the most unlikely explanation for anything rather than the most likely. Perhaps they just dislike the thought of living in a world where random things happen.
@ occasional reader
I’m not sure the Rainbow Warrior sinking counts as a false flag. The DGSE didn’t try to pin the blame on anyone else (which I think is an essential element of a false flag); they just tried to deny it had anything to do with them.
Boring fact warning: under international law you can fly a false flag to gain a military advantage but you must strike that and raise your real flag before opening fire. That’s the origin of the phrase “show your true colours”.
ETA: ninja’d by EJ
So the same way he plans to implement all of his ideas.
The only thing that’s missing is the liver spots, and the orange spray tan that doesn’t quite cover them up. But yeah. The resemblance is remarkable on so many levels.
1) Murder is by definition an unlawful, premeditated killing, so no you can’t murder someone in self-defense.
2) Does anyone notice how Roosh (et al) use “leftist” in a very dehumanizing manner, very similar to “females” or “the gays”? It is a slight deviation from the pattern as it’s not nouning an adjective, but it still really rubs me the wrong way.
@ Dlouwe
Just to be pedantic, murder doesn’t have to be premeditated.
(Hence the “murder in the nth degree” thing you get in some jurisdictions)
@Alan
Okay, yeah, that’s fair. Still can’t murder in self-defense though!
“False flag” indeed.