MAGAThread XX: A Journal of the Plague Year

[Galloism]

Again, you're missing the bigger picture about the problem of teaching the general public that violence works to get the political results you want.

Violence does not work.

Clearly it does. That's why they did it, and why our institutions buckled in the face of the violence and enacted major changes. That's why people like me excused it.

And thus we taught everyone that violence works to enact political change.

[Page]

Violence does not work.

Clearly it does. That's why they did it, and why our institutions buckled in the face of the violence and enacted major changes. That's why people like me excused it.

And thus we taught everyone that violence works to enact political change.

Does the state itself not teach this lesson by existing? What is law but someone's will + the threat of violence to enforce it?

[Galloism]

Clearly it does. That's why they did it, and why our institutions buckled in the face of the violence and enacted major changes. That's why people like me excused it.

And thus we taught everyone that violence works to enact political change.

Does the state itself not teach this lesson by existing? What is law but someone's will + the threat of violence to enforce it?

Touche`.

But a lot of people aren't smart enough to pick up on that barring significant coverage of nobody people like them using violence in this manner.

[Nakena]

"Extreme centrist"

Is that a thing?

Let me provide some context and perspective where the argument orginates from and how it is to be understood. For that you have to understand how the situation presents would itself from the perspective of a communist:

"Centrist" can be, depending on the context, the [current year] communist/marxist etc equivalent of what was once the alt-rights "cuck".

It's closely related to the "I want to grill" and the "Enlightened Centrist" meme.

It usually carries the implication that the person in question is (often unwittingly) passively or indirectly supporting right-wing positions, the inherent evils of capitalism or even "fascism" due their political position or supposed lack thereof.

From such a perspective there would be, unsurprisingly, a massive difference betweent the events surrounding the CHAZ and the Capitol. As the one is an communist uprising (inherently good and moral) and the other being a fascist one (inherently bad and amoral).

Thus from such a perspective it would be unsurprisingly considered false moral equivalencies or amoral.

Basically saying centrist is another way of saying "Your position is inmoral because it does indirectly support fascism" or "Your position is amoral because it is ignorant of the evils of capitalism". As for the later position I should add that from a marxist perspective the intrinsic evil of capitalism is not an optional perspective to take but an but an fundamental axiom.

Fascism of course is Satan; the absolute evil that is not to be debated but to be destroyed.

Thats why you see communists/antifa often declaring things as fascist when it shows signs with what they associate to be in common with their historical, mythological, arch enemy. It's their way of saying it's "satanic". And like a proper Satan it must always be somewhere lurking, with the possibility of return. It cannot be confined to a historical period or era.

etc.

Now QAnon etc have of course different truths and perspectives on the matter. But once the corresponding basic premises (Trump being the Messiah and the Cabal ruling the world etc) are accepted as true, all further things come from itself and make them the absolute defender of what is morally right and true etc.

[Cannot think of a name]

Oh there is, but they are both part of an escalating pattern of violence. They both meet the definition of sedition, but one of sedition with secessionist underpinnings, while the other is sedition and attempted coup.

Naturally, an attempted coup is a worse form of sedition than just sedition with secessionist underpinnings.

This extreme centrist view point is dangerous.

It is in fact how racist power structures have remained in place for so long. People wearing sheets and burning crosses could never have enough influence over society without polite society making rational excuses for them.

Imagine the frustration of people struggling for their civil rights over the last year, being shot with rubber bullets and real bullets, tear gases and beaten and having in real time to constantly denounce the violence often not even enacted by them. Meanwhile when a racist drives his car into their demonstration the President of the United States literally does a “both sides.” It’s not mistake that he wasn’t the only one to use his car as a weapon against civil rights protestors, and not only have they avoided jail time but Republican legislators have gone so far to make the act legal.

But those fighting for their civil rights have to repudiate violence while protesting 400 years of violence against them. And worse, they have, repeatedly. But like ED 209, the enlightened centrist empowering structural racism demands they comply.

Protestors negotiate a space to protest with the police but are unable to prevent all crime, so after two people do something unpardonable, the people who have been holding civic discussions, providing medical and food aid, and creating art are met with rubber bullets, tear gas, and batons. They spend the rest of the summer literally being snatched off the streets in unmarked vans by unidentified agents.

ED 209 demands they condemn the violence again.

Just a year or two earlier right wing militias aim weapons and back police off to protect a rich mans ability to abuse a public space. To protest what is essentially minimal consequences those same militias take over a federal park facility and suffer no consequences.

But ED 209 wants the people being shot for breaking up fights, selling loose cigarettes, or sleeping in their beds to repudiate the violence that may have been done in their name lest they “justify” the continuation of the 400 years of violence against them.

The president of the United States invited a right wing mob wearing white nationalist paraphernalia sack the capitol while the president of the United States tells them that he loves them and they’re very special while the same president called athletes kneeling sons of bitches.

Imagine the outrage, imagine the indignity, imagine the sheer tone deaf racism to look at white supremists storming the capitol and then have some enlightened centrist, wearing the thin veneer of rationality with the debris still in place, with the death toll not yet settled, to step forward in the smoldering smoke of that event and like ED 209 once again say, “what really needs to happen is for those seeking civil rights to once again repudiate violence.”

To pretend that their the ones setting the precedent and it not being one that was set when white supremists with the help of the police literally bombed from airplanes a black neighborhood for the sin of making a living. Despite report after report that right wing violence is a major threat in the United States, with the largest domestic terror attack being a member of the white supremists movement, ED 209 wants those victims of centuries of violence to repudiate violence.

Burning crosses don’t enforce the racist power structure in the United States. So called reasonable people finding a way to make excuses, to couch their racism in “both sides” faux centric rhetoric that looks at an attack on the capitol by racist forces egged on by the fucking president and bends themselves backward and demands that the people looking for their civil rights to repudiate violence like ED 209 asking for them to comply.

It goes beyond tone deaf. It goes beyond being complicit with right wing racist violence while pretending to be against violence. It participates. It shows a shocking lack of reflection while ironically accusing anyone who understands context of not doing it.

It’s frankly disgusting and they should be ashamed, but they’re not. They’re proud, as they stumbled on a magical middle ground and not instead played the role complacent people have played for centuries.

It makes me sick.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

This extreme centrist view point is dangerous.

"Extreme centrist"

Is that a thing?

Yes it is, like people who think Antifa and the Atomwaffen division are equivalent. I know you are a conservative but I'm sure you can see the difference between guys who break windows and burn garbage cans and a neo nazi terror cell.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

This extreme centrist view point is dangerous.

It is in fact how racist power structures have remained in place for so long. People wearing sheets and burning crosses could never have enough influence over society without polite society making rational excuses for them.

Imagine the frustration of people struggling for their civil rights over the last year, being shot with rubber bullets and real bullets, tear gases and beaten and having in real time to constantly denounce the violence often not even enacted by them. Meanwhile when a racist drives his car into their demonstration the President of the United States literally does a “both sides.” It’s not mistake that he wasn’t the only one to use his car as a weapon against civil rights protestors, and not only have they avoided jail time but Republican legislators have gone so far to make the act legal.

But those fighting for their civil rights have to repudiate violence while protesting 400 years of violence against them. And worse, they have, repeatedly. But like ED 209, the enlightened centrist empowering structural racism demands they comply.

Protestors negotiate a space to protest with the police but are unable to prevent all crime, so after two people do something unpardonable, the people who have been holding civic discussions, providing medical and food aid, and creating art are met with rubber bullets, tear gas, and batons. They spend the rest of the summer literally being snatched off the streets in unmarked vans by unidentified agents.

ED 209 demands they condemn the violence again.

Just a year or two earlier right wing militias aim weapons and back police off to protect a rich mans ability to abuse a public space. To protest what is essentially minimal consequences those same militias take over a federal park facility and suffer no consequences.

Actually one of the occupiers was shot and killed. The only reason the others escaped being charged was due to jury nullification and not the system itself trying to protect them.

[Genivaria]

"Extreme centrist"

Is that a thing?

Yes it is, like people who think Antifa and the Atomwaffen division are equivalent. I know you are a conservative but I'm sure you can see the difference between guys who break windows and burn garbage cans and a neo nazi terror cell.

Indeed, such behavior makes them closer to soccer hooligans to be honest.

[Adamede]

Thank you captain obvious.

However that literally solves nothing nor will it do anything to prevent something like this from happening again.

It would have been prevented had they stationed the National Guard there, like with the BLM protests in DC.
But w/e.

Possibly.

Or out could’ve ended with even more people dead.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Yes it is, like people who think Antifa and the Atomwaffen division are equivalent. I know you are a conservative but I'm sure you can see the difference between guys who break windows and burn garbage cans and a neo nazi terror cell.

Indeed, such behavior makes them closer to soccer hooligans to be honest.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for calling them soccer hooligans. Everyone knows the term is football hooligans, get it right.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

It would have been prevented had they stationed the National Guard there, like with the BLM protests in DC.
But w/e.

Possibly.

Or out could’ve ended with even more people dead.

Considering how things went, I think the trump mob would have run straight into death anyways.

[Des-Bal]

Again, you're missing the bigger picture about the problem of teaching the general public that violence works to get the political results you want.

For the fourteenth time? Surely it can't happen again.

[Adamede]

Again, you're missing the bigger picture about the problem of teaching the general public that violence works to get the political results you want.

Violence does not work.
But comparing CHAZ to Capitol Hill is stupid.

And this is the last I shall speak on the matter with you.

Violence very clearly works. Just open a history book.

And I don’t think you know how comparisons actually work.

[Des-Bal]

Considering how things went, I think the trump mob would have run straight into death anyways.

The way things went was a mass of people rushed the building and some portion of them were more interested in taking stupid pictures and breaking some stuff than murdering Pence and kidnapping congressmen. If the defense was more robust the mob would have been smaller and could be fired on with fewer pangs of conscience.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

One side has been ignored for years over police brutality.
The other thinks there was voter fraud.

Again, you're missing the bigger picture about the problem of teaching the general public that violence works to get the political results you want.

Well, it does, as long you are the State.

[Vassenor]

One side has been ignored for years over police brutality.
The other thinks there was voter fraud.

Again, you're missing the bigger picture about the problem of teaching the general public that violence works to get the political results you want.

So what political results did the 7% of BLM protests that were violent achieve?

[Galloism]

Again, you're missing the bigger picture about the problem of teaching the general public that violence works to get the political results you want.

So what political results did the 7% of BLM protests that were violent achieve?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsole ... 26f0ddd578

[Kowani]

So what political results did the 7% of BLM protests that were violent achieve?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsole ... 26f0ddd578

Tbf, you’d have to prove that all of those places did it because of the violence, and not the 93% of other protests that were peaceful

[Vassenor]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsole ... 26f0ddd578

Tbf, you’d have to prove that all of those places did it because of the violence, and not the 93% of other protests that were peaceful

No, just assume it must be the violence because anything else is bad for the BOTH SIDES argument.

[Cannot think of a name]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsole ... 26f0ddd578

Tbf, you’d have to prove that all of those places did it because of the violence, and not the 93% of other protests that were peaceful

Which would be a difficult task, since many of those reforms were done in conversation with organizational members who frequently denounced violence at the time.

[Senkaku]

Violence does not work.

Clearly it does. That's why they did it, and why our institutions buckled in the face of the violence and enacted major changes. That's why people like me excused it.

And thus we taught everyone that violence works to enact political change.

So what, then? Violence does work to enact political change and has throughout all of human history, are we supposed to somehow remove this timeless and universal truth from people's minds now that they've already been made aware of it?

[Celritannia]

Violence does not work.
But comparing CHAZ to Capitol Hill is stupid.

And this is the last I shall speak on the matter with you.

Violence very clearly works. Just open a history book.

And I don’t think you know how comparisons actually work.

In history? Sure.
But now? Well, look at all the arrests at capitol hill.

I do know how comparisons work, but in this context, it does not.

[Des-Bal]

Which would be a difficult task, since many of those reforms were done in conversation with organizational members who frequently denounced violence at the time.

Who benefitted from the fact that the violence made some form of action necessary regardless of whether or not they personally endorsed it. Whether it was mass murder or institutional change somebody was going to do something and that was a handy foot in the door.

So what, then? Violence does work to enact political change and has throughout all of human history, are we supposed to somehow remove this timeless and universal truth from people's minds now that they've already been made aware of it?

No, we're supposed to stop offering tacit or open endorsement of violence as a political tool and then being shocked when unilateral escalation doesn't exist.

[Des-Bal]

In history? Sure.
But now? Well, look at all the arrests at capitol hill.

I do know how comparisons work, but in this context, it does not.

Wait are you telling me that when you look at history you see no examples of violence not working but then working later? Did you get to the Beer Hall Putsch and stop reading? I won't spoil the next bit, but you will nazi it coming.

[Cannot think of a name]

Which would be a difficult task, since many of those reforms were done in conversation with organizational members who frequently denounced violence at the time.

Who benefitted from the fact that the violence made some form of action necessary regardless of whether or not they personally endorsed it. Whether it was mass murder or institutional change somebody was going to do something and that was a handy foot in the door.

Or... it was the product of the largest civil rights protest in the history of the nation and a massive shift in public opinion in spite of violence. Or in fact the violence enacted on the protestors by the police and local authorities helped turn public opinion towards the protesters.

Which, you know, is what happened.