Federal immigration agents swarm Minneapolis high school, handcuff staff and fire chemical irritants at students. Safety concerns prompt school closure.
That’s how they’d love everyone to think. Violent response gives pretext to drive the jackboot in. If you try to go to pick a fight on a force with a monopoly on violence, you’ll get yourself killed and embolden them.
Successful overthrows happen when elites break ranks, when organised alternatives exist, when military, police and bureaucracy take another option.
Organise peaceful protest, appeal to those in power rather than threatening them, and make the alternative more attractive than the status quo.
I agree, to some significant extent. But I don’t agree with the suppression of violence, here. Rather, it should be channeled into the ranks of said organized alternatives.
…but if there are no organized alternatives, and someone loses their shit, they should do a little research and aim at the most egregious lawnreakers first.
The specific violence is highly contextual. And it’s wise to be light on specifics, but for historical examples you can look up the history of German and Austrian resistance fighters in Germany during and prior to world war 2 if you like. Efforts both peaceful and violent had an impact and contributed to the allied victory.
A good example would be finding specific individuals who have broken the law and killed people, but who have avoided any legal repercussion, and ensuring that there is a repercussion.
It’s definitely not an action that should be taken wildly, or while on tilt. but we’re approaching the point of needing that kind of action.
An alliance of a dozen countries completely crushed the Nazi war machine.
Which isn’t relevant.
You’re strongly implying shooting someone (anyone?) in the US federal government will stop the rapidly increasing fascism. It won’t. It will be a casus belli to double down on fascism.
The casus belli argument might be meaningful if they weren’t already bellicose, and actively pursuing violence. So go hide in a corner.
that said, I don’t advocate violence yet (until, perhaps, an actual dictatorship is established and election terms are violated). It’s still a situation that has potential to be resolved internally, with law, come the elections this year - if there’s meaningful action by the representation.
However, if someone loses their shit, I argue that they should do their homework and go for the most dire of lawbreakers first.
this is the argument that caused people to permit the Nazis.
That’s how they’d love everyone to think. Violent response gives pretext to drive the jackboot in. If you try to go to pick a fight on a force with a monopoly on violence, you’ll get yourself killed and embolden them.
Successful overthrows happen when elites break ranks, when organised alternatives exist, when military, police and bureaucracy take another option.
Organise peaceful protest, appeal to those in power rather than threatening them, and make the alternative more attractive than the status quo.
I agree, to some significant extent. But I don’t agree with the suppression of violence, here. Rather, it should be channeled into the ranks of said organized alternatives.
…but if there are no organized alternatives, and someone loses their shit, they should do a little research and aim at the most egregious lawnreakers first.
So what specific violence do you recommend? Against whom? Where? When? Based on which historical precedent (pick just one)?
Because you’re both very light on specifics. “[T]his is the argument that caused people to permit the Nazis” is a statement made of smoke.
The specific violence is highly contextual. And it’s wise to be light on specifics, but for historical examples you can look up the history of German and Austrian resistance fighters in Germany during and prior to world war 2 if you like. Efforts both peaceful and violent had an impact and contributed to the allied victory.
A good example would be finding specific individuals who have broken the law and killed people, but who have avoided any legal repercussion, and ensuring that there is a repercussion.
It’s definitely not an action that should be taken wildly, or while on tilt. but we’re approaching the point of needing that kind of action.
Ah yes, because if people shot Nazis the Nazis would have taken their ball and gone home.
they did. It was called World War 2.
Really? One person shot one Nazi and the Nazis stopped the holocaust?
don’t pretend your mind doesn’t work well enough to comprehend what I’m saying.
An alliance of a dozen countries completely crushed the Nazi war machine.
Which isn’t relevant.
You’re strongly implying shooting someone (anyone?) in the US federal government will stop the rapidly increasing fascism. It won’t. It will be a casus belli to double down on fascism.
So go pound sand.
The casus belli argument might be meaningful if they weren’t already bellicose, and actively pursuing violence. So go hide in a corner.
that said, I don’t advocate violence yet (until, perhaps, an actual dictatorship is established and election terms are violated). It’s still a situation that has potential to be resolved internally, with law, come the elections this year - if there’s meaningful action by the representation.
However, if someone loses their shit, I argue that they should do their homework and go for the most dire of lawbreakers first.