I half wish it did. Within the far-right sectors of the social mediaverse, calls for murder or desires to engage in pogroms are commonplace, and are typical in the social media histories of rampage killers in the weeks leading up to their respective incidents. It’s conspicuous how often their rage-filled comments discussing violence have failed to trigger an investigation to see if that there fellow needs to be watched for a while.
In my case, I’m not going to engage in violence. At very least, I’m not fit for service in mischief or sabotage. My own next step is to do some research on mutual aid organizations which can serve to support protestors and, if necessary, saboteurs and other makers of mischief.
My comment is a reminder to myself that yes, violence eventually does end up on the table, as happened with Iran when the Mahsa Amini protests were responded to violently by Iranian law enforcement, which is when the banners were swapped for molotov cocktails, and state offices were burned to the ground.
In our case, we know the public will not gain rights until we make it disadvantageous to our governing officials to not do so. And as we’re seeing, they’re glad to take those rights away once they believe the threat has subsided. This is the justification for The Terror in France: while The Terror itself ended with Robespierre, the guillotines came out and aristocratic heads were piled high multiple times in the following century when kings had a propensity for rolling back established constitutional rights.
So long as we’re not going to tear the establishment down to distribute power more sparsely, we’re going to need some way to hurt officials who fail to defend the public interest from their donors, maybe so hard that it hurts the donors. How to do this is well beyond my pay grade, but without such capacity the transnational white power movement is going to continue advancing, and we can expect the US Supreme Court to keep stripping away our rights.
These kind of conversations will get to the attention of a 3 letter agency. Our just social stances will get lemmy raided.
I half wish it did. Within the far-right sectors of the social mediaverse, calls for murder or desires to engage in pogroms are commonplace, and are typical in the social media histories of rampage killers in the weeks leading up to their respective incidents. It’s conspicuous how often their rage-filled comments discussing violence have failed to trigger an investigation to see if that there fellow needs to be watched for a while.
In my case, I’m not going to engage in violence. At very least, I’m not fit for service in mischief or sabotage. My own next step is to do some research on mutual aid organizations which can serve to support protestors and, if necessary, saboteurs and other makers of mischief.
My comment is a reminder to myself that yes, violence eventually does end up on the table, as happened with Iran when the Mahsa Amini protests were responded to violently by Iranian law enforcement, which is when the banners were swapped for molotov cocktails, and state offices were burned to the ground.
In our case, we know the public will not gain rights until we make it disadvantageous to our governing officials to not do so. And as we’re seeing, they’re glad to take those rights away once they believe the threat has subsided. This is the justification for The Terror in France: while The Terror itself ended with Robespierre, the guillotines came out and aristocratic heads were piled high multiple times in the following century when kings had a propensity for rolling back established constitutional rights.
So long as we’re not going to tear the establishment down to distribute power more sparsely, we’re going to need some way to hurt officials who fail to defend the public interest from their donors, maybe so hard that it hurts the donors. How to do this is well beyond my pay grade, but without such capacity the transnational white power movement is going to continue advancing, and we can expect the US Supreme Court to keep stripping away our rights.