Basically, it comes down to whether or not a meaningful amount of people can be radicalized without being personally impacted by the radicalizing force. When the government comes after its people with an armed secret police, the people who are worried they’ll be next are easily radicalized because they feel personally in danger.
The well-meaning members of the various branches of the media and education system that drives the propaganda machine are not directly in danger, at least not from that specific aspect of their lives. They may still be a marginalized race or sexuality who could be radicalized through that aspect, but those people are already being systematically removed from their impactful positions within society by DEI restrictions, likely specifically for that reason.
In the end, it will be a bunch of straight white people running the propaganda machine, who may be sympathetic toward the plight of their marginalized neighbors, but likely not enough to endanger themselves to try to fight back on their behalf. And by the time white people themselves are on the chopping block, there won’t be enough power left to wield against the tyrants if we aren’t fighting for it.
We can get people scared for their lives to band together and try to fight, but we can’t get people who are still holding out for this whole thing to “blow over” to risk it all to try to force it out. But everyone is inching toward that point of personal endangerment; if we can be strategic, maybe we can hold out on the fighting until enough people are personally affected enough to be radicalized that we form a real fighting force. That’s really the only way through I can see, and as I’ve said, it’s a long shot even then.
I suppose we disagree on organized violence being a necessity. Spreading fear is also something I don’t advocate for. I advocate for spreading courage or fearlessness, helping others to realize their power and to stand in it. Getting people scared and moving them towards violence will not create anything besides martyrs and a cycle of hatred on all sides.
20th century ideas on revolution are simply outdated. The times are different.
We have eliminated language barriers, we are vastly interconnected, and we have the means to organize digitally. We can get the facts easily and cut through propaganda. We can spread awareness and build consciousness without really taking any of the steps we once had to. We have AI technologies that we can leverage, as well.
I feel that encouraging scared innocents to threaten violence and potentially kill other scared and confused people to achieve a violent takeover of public institutions isn’t going to turn out the way you hope.
I respect your resolute spirit, your fight, your passion, but I feel there are significant levers we can pull that won’t unleash a cycle of violence, chaos, and uncertainty. I’m not suggesting inaction or apathy or action that effectively amounts to inaction.
I would more quickly see the merits of your viewpoint if you could guarantee that such a cycle wouldn’t be created or would be limited in scope — I may be naive, but I am not so naive to believe you without some pretty weighty reasoning.
Basically, it comes down to whether or not a meaningful amount of people can be radicalized without being personally impacted by the radicalizing force. When the government comes after its people with an armed secret police, the people who are worried they’ll be next are easily radicalized because they feel personally in danger.
The well-meaning members of the various branches of the media and education system that drives the propaganda machine are not directly in danger, at least not from that specific aspect of their lives. They may still be a marginalized race or sexuality who could be radicalized through that aspect, but those people are already being systematically removed from their impactful positions within society by DEI restrictions, likely specifically for that reason.
In the end, it will be a bunch of straight white people running the propaganda machine, who may be sympathetic toward the plight of their marginalized neighbors, but likely not enough to endanger themselves to try to fight back on their behalf. And by the time white people themselves are on the chopping block, there won’t be enough power left to wield against the tyrants if we aren’t fighting for it.
We can get people scared for their lives to band together and try to fight, but we can’t get people who are still holding out for this whole thing to “blow over” to risk it all to try to force it out. But everyone is inching toward that point of personal endangerment; if we can be strategic, maybe we can hold out on the fighting until enough people are personally affected enough to be radicalized that we form a real fighting force. That’s really the only way through I can see, and as I’ve said, it’s a long shot even then.
I suppose we disagree on organized violence being a necessity. Spreading fear is also something I don’t advocate for. I advocate for spreading courage or fearlessness, helping others to realize their power and to stand in it. Getting people scared and moving them towards violence will not create anything besides martyrs and a cycle of hatred on all sides.
20th century ideas on revolution are simply outdated. The times are different.
We have eliminated language barriers, we are vastly interconnected, and we have the means to organize digitally. We can get the facts easily and cut through propaganda. We can spread awareness and build consciousness without really taking any of the steps we once had to. We have AI technologies that we can leverage, as well.
I feel that encouraging scared innocents to threaten violence and potentially kill other scared and confused people to achieve a violent takeover of public institutions isn’t going to turn out the way you hope.
I respect your resolute spirit, your fight, your passion, but I feel there are significant levers we can pull that won’t unleash a cycle of violence, chaos, and uncertainty. I’m not suggesting inaction or apathy or action that effectively amounts to inaction.
I would more quickly see the merits of your viewpoint if you could guarantee that such a cycle wouldn’t be created or would be limited in scope — I may be naive, but I am not so naive to believe you without some pretty weighty reasoning.