Mike Lindell – owner of US manufacturing & sales company 'My Pillow' has been 'permanently blocked' from Twitter.
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mike-lindell-twitter-mypillow-fraud/2021/01/26/id/1007233/?dkt_nbr=6F1212saep7z
I don't know any specifics, and I am not creating a conspiracy theory. I am concerned that the method of punishment for disagreement has become banishment in many forms.
Choose the Right Synonym for insurrection
REBELLION, REVOLUTION, UPRISING, REVOLT, INSURRECTION, MUTINY mean an outbreak against authority. REBELLION implies an open formidable resistance that is often unsuccessful. open rebellion against the officers REVOLUTION applies to a successful rebellion resulting in a major change (as in government). a political revolution that toppled the monarchy UPRISING implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion. quickly put down the uprising REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds. a revolt by the Young Turks that surprised party leaders an insurrection of oppressed laborers MUTINY applies to group insubordination or insurrection especially against naval authority. a mutiny led by the ship's cook
Insurrection | Definition of Insurrection at Dictionary.com
an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government
Dictionary.com provides examples of what the internet propagates as insurrections:
EXAMPLE SENTENCES FROM THE WEB FOR INSURRECTION
__________________________________________________
Breaking it all down, the essence of the meaning of the word is to stand firmly in opposition to an authority, in most instances utilizing physical confrontation as a method or technique of protest.
Now I realize that 'protest' has become a sociological concept since the 1960s, but I think that is akin to Joe Biden stating that Black Lives Matter is not an organization but an idea. Protest is also to stand firmly in opposition to an idea, action, presentation, trend, leader, war, or even government.
Insurrection is more like a protest without physical restraint. When words and signs and numbers-of-gathered-people and speeches have no effect on an undesirable situation, the situational ethos of the gathered group may escalate into a physical altercation—a fight between the parties present.
Does anybody actually require proof that escalations occur historically? Probably. So I will bring some evidence of this happening from the recent past.
There are at least a hundred more at List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States - Wikipedia.
Civil Unrest – yeah. That's the way to downplay bad manners and uncouth activities. There are groups in the United States whose entire purpose is to cause unrest and unruly behavior in the population. Many of these examples of protest/insurrection are the result of organized intent to disrupt the civil unity of the general U.S. population when a specific nexus has provided appropriate opportunity.
Conspiracy – a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. This could include, but not be limited to—disrupting public civility or (at the similarly opposite extreme) international terrorism. It must, however, involve planning.
We plan a party for birthdays—does that constitute a conspiracy? It is a plan, but not quite a conspiracy. Why? Because there is nothing unlawful or harmful or evil being accomplished by the activity that will result from the planning. How can I add evil to unlawful or harmful from the definition? Click on the word conspiracy above to read several additional definitions. Evil is in that list of definitions. Evil might not necessarily be either unlawful or harmful. It might be something that changes the very nature of the status quo it is operating against.
So, not to get stuck on the concept of evil, I just want to add it to unlawful and harmful for the purpose of defining conspiracy. Also, just for the purpose of Shaving at the Sanity (the reason for this blog-site) of this whole concept of conspiracy, let me tear the word apart into cons/piracy. We probably all have an idea of about piracy: Blackbeard [Edward Teach (c. 1680 – 22 November 1718)] is probably a prime example. Cons (on the other hand) implies the negative side of something: pros & cons. So then what is the negative side of piracy (cons/piracy)?
A pirate is out to get what can be foraged or stolen for personal gain. Sometimes these activities that result in grand personal gain by nefarious means are spur-of-the-moment happenings. That is the easy way to gather ill-gotten spoils. Look, a ship of the Spanish King: let's take it for our own, kill the crew & keep the spoils. If a plan must be made, it may fail. Failure of a plan is not good. So, a con (pros & cons) of piracy might be that you must make a plan. If a plan for ill-gotten gain is needed, it may indeed have become a conspiracy.
Beginning with the World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993 in New York City, then the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and followed by the more recent bombing and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001, there has been a focused attention to the concept of conspiracy.
Now we can read conspiracy theories about the Kennedy Assassinations, the Lincoln assassination, the moon landing, the Illuminati, Free-Masonry in governments, plane crashes & disappearances, the New World Order, George Soros, anti-Semitism, and even the re-writing of recent (or ancient) history. The fact is that you can create any conspiracy theory you want by stinging together some hitherto unexplained phenomena with your own suggestion of the truth as you describe. The TV show X-Files used to present the logo "The Truth Is Out There" and if it can't be readily found, it can certainly be invented.
We are living in a time when a disliked President can be smeared with lies, half-truths, and truths in such a way that no one can clearly comprehend where the reality can actually be found. It is my personal opinion that politicians lie, and the ones that lie better are re-elected forever. The ones that depend on being understood as honest, are removed from office very quickly. It's all about wheeling & dealing. I almost wish we could just start over.
It seems we are moving toward a future that will not be governed by the best, but by the strongest tale tellers, by the team that pretends the best, or by the bigger bully. I don't know how to understand the reasons behind the movement toward falseness in government, but I do think it has been organized, orchestrated, and ordained by the powerful. In short, I think it is according to a plan—a CONSPIRACY.
That is what I ask myself almost daily. I, like you I suppose, are surrounded by media input: TV newscasters, Hollywood personalities, Opinion Moguls, Newspapers, Magazines, Global Warming pontificators, Global Warming detractors, Billionaires who think they know how society should change, your next door neighbor, my next door neighbor, you, me, others.
What are we to do with all the input? How are we to believe what we hear, or even what we see? How do we differentiate between fact and fiction?
I quote the following question from season 1, episode 1of a TV series titled Ragnarok: "Are the authorities presenting us a fake reality?"
I don't intend to be an alarmist or a conspiracy theorist or a panic-monger. My intention is to wonder why the established authorities consistently inform me that the President of the USA from January 19, 2016 to January 19, 2020 is an evil person when I have experienced that President Trump is the first President in a long time to make several campaign promises and follow through on them. So, how then is he necessarily evil? By what process do we determine such a specific resultant opinion?
It seems that if I listen to all the pundits, I am supposed to know things are true because they tell me those things are true. This may be true or it may not be true. How do we propose to separate fact from propaganda?
Propaganda sounds like truth and is presented to be truth.
If only one perspective is constantly being presented by the pundits, doesn't that imply that they want us to believe that one perspective and not question the presentation?
When someone is pushing their specific perspective on me, I must wonder why it is so important that I believe them and what they have to say. Why does it matter so much?
The few news resources that tell a different story from the rest are suggested to be spinning conspiracies or merely misrepresenting the facts. But, the question remains—how can we know for certain either way?
I suggest we each begin the process of reading information from both perspectives, listening carefully to both sides of every issue, and weighing the consequences of believing either side of every presentation. It seems we are on the verge of being manipulated, and I suggest we do our best to not let it happen.
It is well past time to make an amendment to the US Constitution to limit the consecutive terms that may be served by a Congressional Senator or Representative. Many professional politicians do not serve the people of their district, but instead serve their own personal agenda.
I do believe we have some decent congress people, but it is difficult to separate the good from the not-so-good. It does seem that the concept of "swamp" applies to the US Congress due to the fact that there is no clear method for John/Jane Q. Public to see what is really happening in the Halls of Congress or to succinctly understand the implications of a 2000-6000 page Bill before the House or Senate.
If we limit the number of consecutive terns of office a Senator may serve to 3, we are allowing a good Senator to serve for 18 years, and that is plenty of time to serve. If we limit the number of consecutive terms for a Representative to 9, they would also serve 18 years. (These numbers are just used for an example.) It is also a good idea to determine early if a congressional representative in either house is serving the needs of that representative's constituency. If yes, vote them in office for another term. If not, vote them out of office.
There is a process described in the US Constitution for the amending of the Constitution. I think the US Constitution should be our guide as Citizens of the United States. If you are unfamiliar with this document, I include it for your benefit at United States Constitution.
