Mark Dice does a good job of covering the latest here. The development which was new to me was that "Airbnb" has banned not just politicians, but private citizens from using their app, if those citizens were known to be present at the capitol protests, because those people are purportedly associated with "hate groups".
Like when I got banned several years ago from a gaming forum for being a "white supremacist", for explaining the history of Cultural Marxism, of all things.
This "Airbnb" thing is a huge deal, and I'm a little surprised Mark glossed over it: because to my knowledge, this is the first time we've seen a company banning people from essentially traveling-- booking a house for a vacation, in this case-- due to their political views. I'm wondering if this is even legal: but then again, man-made laws don't apply in this "new normal"; the courts would probably just strike down opposition to the bans no matter what the written laws say.
Never forget: there are two sets of laws-- those passed by man, and the higher body of rules which transcend man. You can call the latter "natural rights"; they can be logically arrived at in a secular way, or can be considered "God's law", whichever you prefer. You are under no obligation to follow man made laws which contradict the natural laws: but you are under a 100% obligation to follow the higher laws, at all times.
This following of natural rights and transcendental laws needs to be our beacon: it's our tether to morality; it's what seperates us from the Left, who are essentially hedonistic pack animals at this point.
Let's apply natural rights to the issues facing us now:
Regarding the ever-present "it's private companies" issue, on a moral level I support companies doing all of this: go ahead! And if a store wants to ban blacks or Jews, go ahead as well: it's like Peter Schiff used to say-- "I'd rather they put up a sign saying they don't like Jews, so I don't inadvertently give them money." After all, it's their property, just like your house is your property, and you obviously are allowed who to vet who enters.
But what these companies are going to find is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: not only will people boycott them, en masse, and not only will new competitors step into the arena, but a massive civil war will probably break out, and all of their infrastructure, not to mention the economy upon which they are dependent, will get destroyed collaterally. Ultimately, all of their present actions are self-defeating.
Regarding political violence, there are two principles at play, one moral and one consequential.
On the moral front, the initiation of force is wrong, but self defense is more than ok. This is natural rights-- the higher law. Pulling a "BLM" and attacking private businesses is domestic terrorism. On the consequential front, while taking over a government building is morally ok-- after all, it's "the people's" building, right?-- it's a waste of time if done in isolation; all you'll do is get arrested, and in prison you're of no use to the cause.
However, if a plan is come up with, where multiple states form a sort of alliance, and private armed militias become a part of that plan, and these militias are attacked, then by all means engage in "violence" in the form of self-defense. In fact, that is what I propose: the Right need some kind of a holistic plan to unite under and execute, which has some kind of realistic chance of success. Otherwise the movement will become lost, morally and pragmatically, as individuals' frustrations boil over.
Some people are saying the Right shouldn't do anything physical, because the Left will use that as an excuse to "crack down". But the Left are going to do that anyway, no matter what happens or doesn't happen! All we'd do by inaction is invite the gulags, and go down with a whimper.