Today marks the enauguration of president elect Joe Biden. A man who has received 75 million votes,more than any other president in history with approx 79.3 million votes.In an election where his opponent, Donald Trump, also beat any prior president in votes, with approx 73.5 million votes.

The Capital is locked down, after supposed fears of a violent protest took hold of the biden administration.

This has led to the capital having approximately 30,000 national guard troops patrolling the streets, over a week prior to the inauguration, the event that they were safeguarding.

According to the mainstream media, and ex members of the secret service, this is to ensure the "peaceful transition of power." Which raises the question;

In what world is military occupation considered a peaceful transition? especially for a president so popular, he got more votes than any other in HISTORY?

You could reply, saying that its over fears of an armed insurrection by 'far-right' individuals, however the definition of far right has been stretched so far and so thin, it has reached the point where its weight is that of a teenager calling someone "gay".

Not only that, but the supposed "insurrection" that occured January 6th was simply not an insurrection, for what insurrectionists are so respectful that they would make sure to keep between the lines and not touch the velvet ropes like they were touring an English Heritage site?

Anybody who watched any raw footage from the protests would know that it was the equivalent to a group of schoolboys finding a classroom unlocked and empty during a lunch break and sitting in the teachers chair.

Defining "protest"

In 2020, the APStylebook changed their definition of protest and made a statement to discourage the use of 'riot' when describing violent events involving protestors.

This was done in response to the death of George Floyd, and to cover for the rioters destroying businesses, burning and looting cities.It is interesting to note this change, as it means that even if the media had been accurate in their portrayal of the events that took place in the capital, it would still be define by the APStylebook as a protest

"Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for ratial justice, going back to the urban uprisings of the 1960s"

The AP also called for the use of "unrest" in place of "riot" when referring to property destruction caused by rioting.

"Unrest is a vaguer, milder and less emotional term for a condition of angry discontent and protest verging on revolt,"

By these standards, even the minor property damage, which was destruction of media cameras and scattering of paperwork, would make the "worst" of the protests nothing more than the civilians displaying their anger and any attempt to downplay their issues are the work of dishonest actors

Looking at the core figures in the protests you can see that they were obviously not there to cause harm, they bought flags and megaphones. These are not the weapons of insurrectionists, but the tools of a people wanting to be heard.

Further expanding on the AP, they also said;

"Protest and demonstration refer to specific actions such as marches, sit-ins, rallies or other actions meant to register dissent. They can be legal or illegal, organized or spontaneous, peaceful or violent, and involve any number of people"

Now if that doesnt sound like a wide net, I couldnt tell you what does, however the AP Stylebook is considered the be all and end all for journalistic recommendation. These changes were obviously only meant to be of the benefit to the political establishment, however any honest man should be able to see that there was no riot or insurrection at the capital, that is however, not how the new administration see it, or how they, using the mainstream media, are framing it. This brings us back to the present day.

The Portrayal of the Protestors will only fuel vengeance.

Say what you will about the people who either went to the capital or support them, mischaracterising them will not do anything to earn back their fervor, it will only fuel their hatred of you.

To add to that, making it so they cannot speak that easily about what they think, be it via the censorship of social media, or trying to belittle them via mainstream sources will not change their minds, even if they are silent, they will still speak in their minds.

I am not an American, and I do enjoy poking fun at them from time to time, however I can say that they have some of the most gusto of any people.And from experience I can say this to any American reading: Have faith in yourself, your ideals, and your future. You will have to work for it, but if your ideas are just, they shall lead you to victory. Play the long game. It will be worth any number of years of belittling.

What does the way in which this inauguration is being conducted tell me?

The simplist thing I can say is that there is a particular irony, in having hollywood actors host your inauguration, with the location locked down with an "inpenetrable wall" and 30k troops for an administration that cried out when Trump wanted to build a wall around America. They only care about themselves, not you, the American people.