Festival of Hypocrisy: Turning a Blind Eye to Violence for Political Reasons

Today I continue the thread started in Progressive Media Traps: From Witch Hunts to Disinformation Spiral. In the previous text, I analyzed how media and social groups fall into their own narrative traps, selectively interpreting facts and creating a spiral of disinformation. However, this mechanism runs deeper - it leads to relativization and justification of political violence. Trump’s mass pardons and various groups’ reactions to the release of radicals show how double standards and media hypocrisy translate into real threats to democracy.

Mass Pardoning of Radicals and Criminals

We are living through unprecedented times. We’re witnessing a disturbing wave of radicalization sweeping through American society. Within hours of taking office, Trump pardoned over 1,500 people charged in connection with the January 6 riots and Ross Ulbricht, founder of the Silk Road drug marketplace. Among those freed were key leaders of far-right organizations, including Enrique Tarrio of the Proud Boys, sentenced to 22 years, and Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers, who received an 18-year sentence.

The timing and scale of these pardons are particularly troubling, emerging when political violence is increasingly normalized across the ideological spectrum. From left, center, and right. Am I exaggerating? Just look at the scale of conspiracy theories, disinformation, and amplification of violent themes on all sides of the political dispute. From glorifying the murder of a healthcare CEO by Luigi Mangione to celebrating Ross Ulbricht’s release, we’re witnessing a dangerous convergence of narratives justifying violence as a legitimate political tool.

The Silk Road Case: Dismantling the Libertarian Myth

Let’s first examine the arguments of Ulbricht’s pardon supporters:

• Ulbricht received an excessively harsh sentence (2 life sentences without parole + 40 years).
• He wasn’t formally charged with murders - so he can’t be considered a murderer.
• Silk Road moved drug trade from streets to the internet, potentially reducing violence.
• The American penal system is too harsh and repressive.

Arguments for Ross Ulbricht’s pardon are mainly raised by libertarian communities, cryptocurrency supporters, opponents of excessive government power, anti-establishment militias, and critics of the American penal system.

While Ross Ulbricht’s release may not be linked to the wave of violence, it certainly has a political dimension, as it’s repayment of a debt Trump owes to crypto cowboys supporting him along with accelerationist circles. His release triggered a wave of celebration among some communities on the opposite side of the political barricade, who portray him as a digital freedom fighter and victim of an oppressive system’s provocation.

Looking at Ulbricht’s case, this narrative deliberately omits key aspects of the Silk Road case. Understanding the context of the American legal system in this case is particularly important. In a precedent-based system, federal prosecutors consciously avoid including charges in the indictment that could weaken the entire case. Therefore, if other evidence and charges are sufficient to convict a criminal, they choose the strongest ones. Thus, the argument that lack of formal murder charges proves their falsehood is deeply misleading. Not to say it’s manipulation.

In reality, evidence of Ulbricht’s murder planning as “Dread Pirate Roberts” is extensively documented in court records:

In a later chat with another person, RealLucyDrop, DPR wrote that it would be “terrible” if the personal information were to be released, and thus he needed FriendlyChemist’s “real world identity so I can threaten him with violence if he were to release any names.” United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 89 (2d Cir. 2017)

We also have specific contracts, payments, and murder confirmations beyond chat evidence. Yes, Ulbricht’s supporters say these turned out to be scams (the killer didn’t execute the contract), but this doesn’t matter for intent - do we need a corpse to convict someone for attempted murder?

The episode escalated from there. DPR connected with Redandwhite, who was FriendlyChemist’s supplier, and wrote that “FriendlyChemist is a liability and I wouldn’t mind if he was executed.” Id. at 1822. After negotiating the logistical details of the murder, Ulbricht agreed to pay Redandwhite $150,000 in Bitcoins to kill FriendlyChemist. DPR paid Redandwhite, who later confirmed that he had received the payment and carried out the murder, and sent what appeared to be a photo of the dead victim to DPR. DPR replied that he had “received the picture and deleted it,” and thanked Redandwhite for his “swift action.” United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 89 (2d Cir. 2017)

I think the libertarian arguments about Silk Road’s positive impact, low harmfulness, or excessive sentencing can be dismissed as fairy tales. The fact that the murders didn’t occur doesn’t mean Ulbricht didn’t plan them. For supporters of his release, this is evidence of a government conspiracy. Unfortunately, I must conclude that no rational argument will convince those with established views on the matter and paranoids.

The Surprising Logic of Reconciliation: January 6 Insurgents’ Pardons

Mass pardons covered over 1,500 people charged in connection with the Capitol attack and ordinary criminals as well. Trump described this move as “ending a serious national injustice” and “beginning the process of national reconciliation.” Where have we Poles seen this before - reconciliation on a wave of hate speech?

Pardon supporters, mainly from MAGA and right-wing circles, raise several key arguments. First, they claim we’re dealing with selective justice - BLM riot participants weren’t treated as harshly. Thus, the BLM movement is depreciated. Following this logic, people protesting police brutality should be treated the same as right-wing militias seeking to overthrow the federal government. Some go further, suggesting provocation by the FBI or Antifa. There’s also a narrative that most participants were ordinary people who felt encouraged by the then-president to “defend democracy” and protest against “stolen elections”. This of course ignores the fact that even sincere belief in the righteousness of actions doesn’t justify attempting to forcibly overturn a democratic process. Not to mention that all claims about fraud and stolen elections proved to be disinformation and manipulation.

From articles I’ve read, reactions from victims’ families and injured officers show the deep social divide and polarization these decisions deepen. After all, they freed murderers of police officers on duty defending the Capitol. This strongly reminds me of the situation we have in Poland after the Smolensk catastrophe.

The pardons of Capitol attack participants are mainly supported by Donald Trump supporters, conservative media, right-wing organizations, some libertarians, and anti-system political movements.

Craig Sicknick, whose brother, Officer Brian Sicknick, was attacked during the riots and died the next day from strokes, called Trump “pure evil.” Michael Fanone, former Metropolitan Police Department officer who suffered serious injuries during the riots, expressed outrage that six people who attacked him were released. Well, this doesn’t look like reconciliation, but rather pouring fuel on the fire.

Currently, the circumstances of releasing key radicals from militarized gangs seem particularly troubling. Stewart Rhodes, convicted of seditious conspiracy, heard a warning from federal judge Amit Mehta during sentencing: “It’s clear that for decades you wanted this country’s democracy to devolve into violence… At the moment of your release, whenever that occurs, you’ll be ready to take up armed struggle against your government.” Releasing extreme radicals in the name of national reconciliation is a joke and hypocrisy twisted beyond scale.

Anatomy of Radicalization: From Yoga to Extremism

On my blog, I look at conspiracy theorists, so I didn’t miss the particularly disturbing pattern of radicalization visible in the case of Alan Hostetter, a former police officer and yoga teacher who went from conducting mindfulness sessions by the ocean to participating in the violent Capitol attack, for which he was sentenced to 11 years in prison. He too has been pardoned and is free.

This transformation, thoroughly documented in BBC Gatehouse’s podcast about conspiracy theories and various articles, extremism monitoring projects, shows a typical path of radicalization and descent into the paranoid rabbit hole. Starting from opposition to COVID restrictions as rebellion against the establishment, through gradual immersion in MAGA conspiracy theories, to active participation in the attempted coup. Significantly, this process was driven by progressive social ostracism which, instead of inhibiting radicalization, paradoxically accelerated it, pushing the individual deeper into the “rabbit hole” of extremism. I think this should also be a signal for normal people that ostracism towards such people fuels radicalization.

So will releasing criminals and radicals be a platform for reconciliation? Or rather for spinning up the spiral of disinformation and paranoia, and finally radicalizing the entire society?

Detailed documentation of these processes, conducted by projects such as George Washington University’s Program on Extremism or Sedition Hunters, shows how systematic this transformation can be using hundreds of Capitol attack cases as examples. OSINT analysts have gathered extensive materials documenting social media activity, speech transcripts and testimonies, and photographic documentation, creating a comprehensive picture of the radicalization process and simply tracking down these individuals and gathering evidence for prosecutorial proceedings.

Relativization Legitimizing Violence

For several weeks, I’ve been observing a disturbing pattern in how these cases are discussed in media sphere and social media. The same people who rightly condemn right-wing violence often defend or minimize left-wing violence and vice versa. These are dangerous double standards. If we relativize violence and the same acts are condemned or justified depending on who commits them - it creates very fertile ground for extremism development. Something like a common anti-establishment platform emerges, being off towards mainstream, generating conspiracy theories about science being at the service of evil corporations.

Celebrating Ross Ulbricht’s release as supposedly Robin Hood who was actually “set up” in the case, or justifying Mangione’s murder because he suffered, seem not to notice that the same logic can be used against them. Against minorities, ordinary people, disabled persons. This is how Nazism was born. This is particularly paradoxical, considering that historically it’s precisely minorities and marginalized groups who first fall victim to escalating political violence.

As a child, I visited the Dachau concentration camp, which even before World War II was intended for communists and homosexuals. The Nazis, coming to power, simply expanded the catalog of exclusions and on the wave of dehumanizing others simply began implementing their extermination project. Does my reader really think that in the age of flat-screen TVs, electric cars, or Elon Musk, extermination cannot occur? And what’s happening in Ukraine? The West doesn’t really want to hear about such problems. It seems, therefore, that these boundaries of relativization can be moved without problem.

Hypocrisy. Swan Song?

Current hypocrisy and relativization of values thus creates a dangerous precedent. When ethical standards become fluid and dependent on the perpetrator’s political identity, a moral vacuum emerges that can be exploited by forces seeking violence against the same groups that today legitimize violence in the name of their goals. The fact that minorities or the left also speak the language of violence while criticizing the violent language of the other side is, in my opinion, a kind of “swan song” - the last act before potential catastrophe. Social media algorithms only accelerate this.

I don’t think it’s possible to maintain coherent ethical standards with such great polarization in the face of unprecedented events while simultaneously maintaining hypocrisy and selective perception of facts. Manipulation of facts and their concealment is the fundamental problem. Regardless of political orientation. Mass pardons of people convicted of political violence, along with their defenders minimizing documented brutal intentions, in my opinion emphatically mark a dangerous new phase in American political discourse - a phase whose consequences may be tragic for the same groups that today lend a hand to its legitimization.

Sources:

Al Jazeera: “Far-right Oath Keepers, ex-Proud Boys leaders released after Trump pardons

Program on Extremism, George Washington University: “Capitol Hill Siege”

Sedition Hunters: Documentation and analysis of Capitol attack participants

BBC podcast: the coming storm

“Texas Man Sentenced to More Than 11 Years in Prison for Conspiracy to Obstruct Congress and Other Charges”

Trump Frees Silk Road Creator Ross Ulbricht After 11 Years in Prison

United States v. Ulbricht (1:14-cr-00068) District Court, S.D. New York

United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 89 (2d Cir. 2017)

Former Police Chief Among Jan. 6 Defendants Released

Media:

File:Tuesday afternoon, 12 January 2021 Walk from US Capitol West to Union Station - Washington DC IMG 0547 Elvert Barnes, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

• MAGA
• Festival of Hypocrisy