SJW Radical Planned to Detonate a 200-lb Bomb on the National Mall

3
Paul Rosenfeld

Paul Rosenfeld, 56, was arrested in Tappan, Rockland County, New York, based on a tip from a person he communicated with about a plot to detonate a 200-pound bomb on the National Mall, D.C. on Election Day.

Law enforcement only came up with 8 pounds of gunpowder and that makes a little but lethal bomb. Someone exaggerated.

ABC News reported he planned to blow himself up with the bomb.

The tipster, believed to be a reporter living in Pennsylvania, had letters and texts from Rosenfeld detailing the plot.

Rosenfeld adheres to an ideology called Sortition, which advocates that government officials should be selected by lottery rather than popular vote.

Hey, maybe we would do better, especially in New York and California [just kidding except for NY or California, all apologies to Lee Zeldin]

FBI bomb technicians discovered and removed a plywood box filled with eight pounds of gunpowder. Rosenfeld had rehearsed with several smaller bombs.

He confessed.

There are a lot more just like him.

At a Senate hearing Wednesday morning, FBI Director Christopher Wray said his agents are investigating about 1,000 homegrown terror threats in all 50 states.

“Those cover the waterfront of the full range of extremist ideologies from right to left and everything in between,” Wray said.

He appears to be an insane social justice warrior.

Paul Rosenfeld was a member of a blog group calling themselves Kleroterians. They follow the principle of sortition. They are believers in complete randomness. Their focus was on distributing elected offices by lottery and by statistics. The lottery would contain 50% women, 28% hispanics and blacks, rich and poor, young and old, straight and gay, and very few lawyers. The site is equalitybylot.com

In a piece he wrote in March, 2015 for the group, titled, The Extinction of Politics, he lamented the “fervent belief” in what he believes is “The [failed] Democratic Process”.

Government should be run by citizen juries, he proposed.

The madman talks about the uphill climb in getting their ideology into the mainstream and the need to be “extremely creative”.

A 200-pound bomb appears to be his idea of “extremely creative”.

He wrote about the need to demolish the myth of one man, one vote:

The fight for sortition goes against all this. To say we’re engaged in an uphill battle is a profound understatement. We’re at the bottom of an enormous cliff armed only with our wits and our fingernails. In this context we must be extremely creative. To promote our cause as a struggle for good government or social justice may be literally correct, but it falls far short of the mark in my opinion. If we are to have any chance of success at all we must seek to actually demolish the myth of one man, one vote!

His plan for social justice must include the elimination of the Democratic process.

To promote our cause as a struggle for good government or social justice may be literally correct, but it falls far short of the mark in my opinion. If we are to have any chance of success at all we must seek to actually demolish the myth of one man, one vote! We will never be able to scale this cliff, but perhaps with the right combination of words we may undermine it to the point of collapse. Long odds no doubt, but I believe it’s the only play we have.

Basically, he wants to replace democracy and capitalism with true social justice, achieved through sortition and argued successfully by presenting it as a biological inevitability.

His entire philosophy is to achieve social justice for the common good.

By “common good” I intend the greatest good for the greatest number. I would equate this with social equality and equitable distribution of resources. “Majority Rule”, with its factions and maneuvering and minorities and intrigue, inevitably leads to social stratification and unequal distribution of resources (the winning coalition divides the spoils among themselves and the losing minority gets trampled).

Some of the Kleroterians want it to be a pure lottery with no regard for education or experience. Even Rosenfeld is concerned about that.

His ideas for promoting the little organization of 300 plus members included a well-done video, engaging in activism, and reaching out to Academia. Since 2015 however, he came to the conclusion that a BIG BOMB would be the best attention-getter.

Yes, folks, this Kleroterian is nuts.

3 COMMENTS

  1. O.M.G. – I had no idea there was a group of people that stupid. I should have known the Democrats and commies couldn’t have been the bottom of the barrel.

  2. Rosenfield’s article on EqualityByLot.com drew 135 comments back in 2015 but only one “Like,” and several thoughtful and unenthusiastic responses. Here are extracts from comments 2, 3 & 4:

    “constitutionalism”: The strategy for getting sortition used more is incremental. Use it more and more for making less important decisions, then for more important ones, until the public develops confidence in it.

    Keith Sutherland: Absolutely. So let’s end all this prattling about abolishing “electoralism”. It won’t happen and, if Jon Roland and Raphael Sealey are right, it will only end in bloodshed.

    Yoram Gat: Paul, Thanks – a very interesting article. I am not sure that I understand your argument, however. What about majority rule within an allotted chamber? Is that also not considered as leading to the “common good”? If not, how would common good be arrived at? In my opinion what we are arguing against is mass voting, not majority rule.

    Many of the regular contributors to the site are academics who have published in academic journals. They are mostly cautious about implementing sortition (i.e., in small steps) and, when implemented, usually advocate blending it in with existing institutions and practices (i.e., voting, existing legislatures, etc.) in some manner.

    An egalitarian faction there is different: it wants a purely microcosm-type legislature with all power and few institutional limits or practices. But they argue their positions in an unheated (mostly), respectful (mostly) manner, as many of them are academics too. Both sides cite interesting historical literature on the topic—e.g., the fine details of the Athenian system.

Leave a Reply