- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or # to comment.
Not every protest is met with direct force. There’s plenty that are dismantled from the inside using tactics developed in the sixties to divide and weaken idealogical movements! Shit literally documented in intelligence agency standard procedure documents for dealing with large scale idealogical movements and breaking them apart.
Then you just sprinkle some direct force here and there as a treat!
Occupy Wallstreet was poisoned in its crib through infiltration by external forces causing confusion, internal disent, and loss of direction. That is the one “conspiracy theory” I don’t think I will ever be able to let go of.
Intersectionality and identity politics were long overdue, but there’s no way in hell that their rise from the ashes of OWS was a coincidence. Give the socially concious public something else to latch onto for a while so the 1% can shore up their defenses and power structure while the people at the bottom squabble over very important but far less impactful things.
As important as everything else is, the largest determinant of life outcome is money, almost entirely overlooked in most discussions about gender and race.
I agree with everything you said. I wish down voters would express their differences of view instead.
They are so good at breaking up large ideological movements the white supremacists had to change their name from the KKK to MAGA
It’s social engineering at its finest. They’ve mastered the art of dividing Americans, destroying the family unit, and eroding community bonds. Now, only state-approved groups remain, aimlessly arguing against each other.
It’s disheartening to see America using tactics against its own people to create division and steer us into becoming more like slave workers. The legacy of those intelligence agency methods is still evident today. Occupy Wall Street’s downfall due to infiltration and internal dissent is a prime example. The rise of intersectionality and identity politics, while important, has also diverted attention from the economic issues that affect everyone. It feels like the tree of liberty is withering away as the 1% continues to strengthen their hold.
I don’t see how intersectionality diverts attention from economic issues given that it recognizes how different issues, including economic ones, are connected.
Because instead of focusing on the 0.1% who are exploiting everyone, attention is being directed towards other issues that, while important, could be addressed later.
Are the tactics and procedures used to break down such documents leaked? Id love to read more about it, and I suppose it may be part of some of the leaks that happened in the last few years.
I’m interested in how exactly they do/did it, so I know what to watch out for.
To me, OWS failed because they lacked any sort of leadership or vision other than a list of grievances with no solutions.
Extremely unfun fact: before even the Jews, they came for LGBTQ+ people. The first major Nazi book burning was at the Institute For Sexuality which, apart from being a research institute dealing with all sorts of “nonstandard” sexuality in a scholarly rather than punitive manner, was also the world’s first trans clinic.
The reason it’s not mentioned is that Pastor Niemöller, being a conservative pastor, didn’t see anything wrong with the persecution and erasure of LGBTQ+ people.
One of the reasons it’s important to remember that the LGBTQ+ community were the first targets of concerted Nazi erasure even though they were far from the first targets of nazi hatred and slander is that the GOP are doing the same thing and they’ll go through the rest of the list too if they aren’t stopped.
Also important to remember when people are talking about queer identities being a “new trend” or whatever
It’s not
We just got erased from history
This is also why people think being trans is a “new” thing. The Institute For Sexuality was the first and only place performing research and on trans people and offering gender affirming care. When the Nazi book burnings happened, they burned the entirety of the world’s research on trans people.
Worth mentioning that Magnus Hirschfeld (guy who ran the Institute For Sexuality) was Jewish, and that is a big part of the reason why his institute was attacked. According to Nazi propaganda, his institute (and queerness in general) was a Jewish plot to weaken the white race.
Which goes to show, fascist propaganda hasn’t changed all that much since then!
Some LGBTQ+ people even vote for conservatives, as too do black, disabled, women, other non-white “minorities” (
I put in quotes b/c white people are actually the minority in the USA now, but on the other hand that fact doesn’t seem to matter one bit to those who use that term the most…Edit: sorry I misremembered, it is only the under-18 crowd where that is true for now).And these people are shocked, Shocked I tell you, SHOCKED when the conservative party eventually turns on them. I know, shocking, right?
They don’t understand that the result of pyramid-thinking is by its very nature exclusive rather than inclusive (Innuendo Studios video “There’s Always a Bigger Fish” + Endnote video “The Origins of Conservatism”). They haven’t been excluded from it - YET! - but they will, it is only a matter of time. It’s karma. What is done - and allowed to be done - to others, can easily be done to YOU.
Ironically, Jesus Himself said “Treat others as you would wish they would do for you, in fact, even better than that - and nobody gets excluded from that”. Also the Bible says a bunch of other stuff - the worker deserves their wages, live & let live, and so, so much else that just flat gets ignored by the people using it as a club to beat someone with.
71% of the US population is white.
Okay yeah I misremembered my terms - whiteness is on its way out, and in fact the under-18 crowd has white as a minority already, though I forgot for a moment that the rest of the age groups won’t catch up until the next decade or two as the Boomers and such die off. White people tend to have fewer children than non-white people, so that’s just how that works.
More important is the fact that conservative voters are in the minority, and have been for a long time. While not precisely the same thing, it is somewhat related.
even with white people’s population plateauing, white people will be the largest single group for a good while. Also, while we are seeing the largest total growth from the latino population, and the largest growth per capita being asian, all demographic’s fertility rates drop after their family has been here for ~3 generations as they adjust to the cost of living. So we have white people as the most influential group for quite some time to come.
But, yes, people who identify as conservative republicans make up about 30% of the population. However, due to awful voter turn out, they represent much closer to 50% of the population that actively votes, because they are far more likely to do so per capita. So it will also be a while before their level of influence declines. That is, unless, we suddenly convince 60% of the population to take voting seriously.
However, due to awful voter turn out, they represent much closer to 50% of the population that actively votes
I realize you may not want to hear this from me after my mistake earlier, but I believe that is not true. The “popular vote” is also counted in each Presidential election, even though it does not determine anything, and the last time a Republican won that was 2004. For the last 20 years, people’s votes simply aren’t being counted, bc they tend to aggregate together in cities and university towns, rather than spread far out across hundreds of miles of farmland, as e.g. people in Idaho do.
If you live in an area that leans >80% one way or another, then I don’t blame people for not voting, bc their votes won’t affect anything whatsoever. Especially young people, who have a disproportionate hardship to “just get out and vote” - having to take time off from work (retired people don’t), college students may need to drive hundreds of miles to get “home” (which even if they do “often”, still has to coincide with voting time, and comes at cost of sleep, studying, homework, etc.), people with kids have to struggle with daycare, and so on.
If we truly wanted more people to vote, then as a nation we would encourage that - e.g. give everyone a break from work, have appropriately equipped (e.g. staffed) recipient stations, and/or better yet allow mail-in voting. Making votes from some particular areas “count” while those from other areas not count, is very much a feature that was designed - as the very people that did it freely admit, and continue to push forward all the time.
Put another way, voting turnouts heavily correlate with age, aka the ability to vote with greater ease.
take voting seriously
I guarantee you - bc it’s simply math - that if every single liberal Democrat were to get out and vote in the next election, thus representing the popular vote by 100% of the eligible people on that one side, it still would have extremely low impact on the actual end result. What would instead have a MASSIVE impact would be a bunch of liberals moving to a state like Texas, and rather than continue to vote from San Francisco or NYC, to influence the Electoral College system from that new location where it has a chance to actually flip it from red to blue, rather than reinforce the already blue still further.
Which has been happening lately - e.g. Austin - but also, I can’t blame people especially women who due to the overall lack of healthcare and toxicity of surrounding neighbors may not wish to do that.
All that said, yes overall engagement will be necessary to combat the issues facing us all - e.g. people need to step up and run for office, or else we end up getting the jokers that we currently have. But it’s nowhere near as simplistic as you make it sound, like all that would be needed would be to “vote”. imho at least!:-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_…
Niemöller made confession in his speech for the Confessing Church in Frankfurt on 6 January 1946, of which this is a partial translation:
… the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians—“should I be my brother’s keeper?”
Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it’s right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn’t it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? Only then did the church as such take note.
Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren’t guilty/responsible?
The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers. … I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out.
We preferred to keep silent. We are certainly not without guilt/fault, and I ask myself again and again, what would have happened, if in the year 1933 or 1934—there must have been a possibility—14,000 Protestant pastors and all Protestant communities in Germany had defended the truth until their deaths? If we had said back then, it is not right when Hermann Göring simply puts 100,000 Communists in the concentration camps, in order to let them die. I can imagine that perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 Protestant Christians would have had their heads cut off, but I can also imagine that we would have rescued 30–40,000 million [sic] people, because that is what it is costing us now.
A large part of the very founding of the USA was due to Quakers escaping the persecution of slave owners, b/c they were so radical in their advocacy to halt slavery. And then it was Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, and other faith groups of all kinds who worked to actually stop it, in the UK and the USA. Sadly they worked against others of the same religions who argued (almost) just as vociferously to continue it…
My point is that religion can do great things, if only it would DO IT. It could help ensure that the worker receives their wages, feed the homeless, take care of widows & orphans (& everyone), be kind and like visit the sick or in prison, and on and on it goes - and to the extent that religious people do these things, that is awesome! But… it takes actually reading the book that is claimed to be “holy” (e.g. “show love to one another - be ye not Karens or Dicks to one another”), and second, it takes courage to actually act upon one’s convictions, rather than merely say in words how much one “believes”.
We have a low tier propagandist in Russia who tweaked the last paragraph:
“And then they stopped coming. Because everything became normal.”
Jokes aside, last week he got accused of committing some kind of crime. Waiting for him to be jailed and the joke to be finished.
Russia seems like a country where Authoritarianism has “won”, and now the USA looks like it wants to join in on that “fun”. :-|
You know, I often think that Putin is a progressive politician. Just the meaning of progress that exists in the society differs to the one that is in the reality
There is an external definition of “progressive” though, part of which is all about minorities rights. Does he really identify himself with progressivism, or does he just think that he’s correct, maybe even that the still he’s doing is so correct that it’s beyond the scale of progressive vs. conservative philosophies?
In contrast, conservativism is all about “traditional values” and authoritarian thinking. So like a progressive may not like LGBTQ+ stuff but they will defend their right to exist, while a conservative will actively work against their existence and even to take steps to force people to conform (e.g. electroshock therapy).
On the other hand, while Russia seems to be pushing the message of conservativism hard, leaving no room for “progressive” thought, Putin himself may be more of an opportunist and simply uses people and even the whole country as a means towards his own ends of personal gratification. Which at his age is probably to leave behind a legacy that will cause him to be remembered (which will definitely happen, but probably not how he hoped!).
There is an external definition of “progressive” though, part of which is all about minorities rights
I don’t like it. It’s wishful thinking that history progresses in the direction you want.
In contrast, I mean that history is progressing towards more people like Putin and more regions like Russia.
Putin himself may be more of an opportunist and simply uses people and even the whole country as a means towards his own ends of personal gratification
Aren’t they all?
Setting aside whether either of us “like” progressivism - we could get into that but atm I just don’t want to get distracted by it - you might be throwing together the ideas of progress-IVE with progress-ING.
Conservatism can make “progress” too - e.g. abortions are now illegal in many parts of the USA, whereas they were not before, that is a step towards the goal that the conservative Right has had for many decades now. The difference, as I understand it anyway, is that Conservatism want to “return to traditional values”, whereas Liberalism wants to make up new ones, like historically LGBTQ+ were considered bad but liberals want to expand human rights to include the right of each person to choose their own sexuality. Both move in a “direction”, both move “forward”, into the “future”, but conservatives choose their direction as the past, seeing that as good, while liberals choose… as you say, something that came out of wishful thinking, aka a fantasy, that they want to make into reality.
Where I think it gets confusing - to me at least - is when politicians mix it up to claim one thing while doing the exact opposite (or worse, pick and choose a little bit from each side). Like Hillary Clinton despite being a Democrat, was extremely like a conservative (pro-war, pro-big business, having little to no social justice components in her platform iirc, etc.), and George W. Bush despite being a Republican was very much like a liberal (pro-socialism e.g. school funding, feeding the homeless & needy, etc.).
I am no political theorist, but it looks like there is a Theory, and that is where these terms fit, and then there is the Reality, where anything goes:-P.
But anyway, yes you are correct: most parts of the world seem to be advancing towards Authoritarianism. The rise of super-corporations and the effects of globalization and automation probably made that inevitable - after all if corporations are literally more powerful than governments, then the natural reaction of a government is going to want to become stronger, to keep up. But that is progress-ING, not progress-IVE. And Russia in particular had an extremely authoritarian regime before the Bolshevik revolution, so moving away from democracy and towards an autocratic government with Putin or his successor at the helm, is “conservative”, returning to traditional valuations rather than engage in the fantasy play of trying to make a democracy viable.
Which btw is why a lot of people are fleeing Russia right now, to one of those fantasy playgrounds where citizens receive more from their governments. Whether liberalism has any long-term viability remains to be seen, but in the short-term it seems quite attractive, to many people.
Aren’t they all?
Abso-fucking-lutely. Or, at least the smart ones do. But, the crucial point is, not equally so. i.e., some give more back to the People than others, i.e. some are simply better at their jobs. Putin naively believed his advisors when they told him that they would win the Ukranian territory in “3 days”, and now look at what it has cost the nation? Not only does it look increasingly likely that a Russian victory is not inevitable anymore, but as more time passes the cost compounds further and such a “victory” starts to look more and more like an abysmal defeat, in the sense that what was delivered was not as promised.
A ton of people want a “strong” leader, but the hard part is that the mere appearance of strength is not the same thing as the reality of it. Same with Trump in the USA, Boris Johnson in the UK, etc., so I’m not just arbitrarily picking on Putin - as you say it’s a trend progressing across the world right now. Anyway, it’s not that Putin’s message is bad (strength, protection, stability, order), it’s that he is an opportunist who merely claims that he would, but then has actually failed to, deliver upon those promises. And again, Trump failed to deliver upon his as well (mostly), and Boris Johnson too (I mean… Brexit happened, but are people satisfied with that outcome? Polls show that most say they are not, and if they could un-do it they would, but they cannot go back in time).
To my knowledge, there has never been a nation since the American and French Revolutions that has survived as a stable autocratic country for awhile - the cat was let out of the bag, and once people realized that they did not have to bow down as slaves before an overlord, they henceforth refused to. Then again, modern democracies are extremely vulnerable to disinformation campaigns spread by modern technology so… it is not like I am trying to say that one is superior or will win out over the other - in truth I have no idea what will happen:-P - I am just pointing out some components that I do see.
and now the USA looks like it wants to join in on that “fun”.
The US joined that club before the ink on the constitution had dried. It has never left.
Okay so now the USA looks like it wants to join in more on that "fun"😄
Not really… the white middle class in the US is coming down from their cozy New Deal high and realizing all the “soft power” was literally just empty propaganda. There is a good reason why the US has inspired some of the most evil events of the modern era - Putin cannot hold a candle to that.
I am pretty sure that genocide is bad - even when the USA/Russia/China/Israel/Palestine/other country of choice supports it.
It should also be pointed out that modern protest movements aren’t particularly tactical. In fact, these people largely suck at it.
You all know how much this country hates homeless and homeless-adjacent people, and yet, you opt to camp out in public areas anyway.
Here’s a darn good article on why your protests fail: https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/caring-isnt-enough/
This started to inspire me to organize a protest and not a social media stunt. I’m behind the idea of a “revolution” but knowing the fundamentals of protesting is honestly eye opening. We can’t just “fight back” blindly, we need to think, we need to plan, and we need to execute our demands.
Yup.
There has also been a tendency for progressive protest movements to get extremely derailed by bad-faith actors subverting the plans, messaging and outcome of the events, seeding bad messages or inciting violence.
While this isn’t necessarily the fault of the protestors, the groups have been terrible about focusing on message and enforcing guidelines for how to safely protest and stay on message, so it’s really hard to separate out these saboteurs and point to them as the problem-starters.
I have said for a long time that the left needs better community organization and better leaders, not just in action movements and marches, but generally on a community level, there are a lot of people committing the same sin as the right, which is attaching to the progressive cause for the performative expression and storyline narrative only, and getting lost in the conflict not the message and goal. Performative progressivism is going to be the thing that sinks movements every time because it’s so easy to poke holes in the half-ass campaigns and the people involved don’t really care enough to push back in an intelligent way, as long as they have their in-groups to retreat to and feel validated and comforted by their community.
Agreed. A lot of these non-violent protests get infiltrated by cops posing as demonstrators. They’re called “agents provocateurs” and they work to undermine and discredit the group’s goals.
They’re fairly easy to spot because they’re always agitating for violence and nobody in the protest seems to know who they are or can remember exactly when they joined your group.
there are a lot of people committing the same sin as the right, which is attaching to the progressive cause for the performative expression and storyline narrative only
Nailed it.
The point of protest is to upset status quo, as a demonstration for attention to grievances.
To imply that you’re doing it wrong is some next generation privilege shit.
What??
I think it’s more, we need to be smart about how we protest to do it most effectively. We can’t afford to be sloppy about it.
Article is sort of right but also seems aimed at discouraging people. Generally seems to be the goal that site, to promote a center right agenda.
Modern protest have little cohesion because Americans have little cohesion. It has no leaders bc any leaders are swept off to jail. It’s a big part of why things suck so much. That article is missing any analysis of why. It’s frankly anti protest propaganda and so are you.
It’s frankly anti protest propaganda and so are you.
It’s actually quite analytical, and gives you several examples as to why prior protest movements were successful. It suggests that maybe modern movements could learn a few lessons if they read their history books.
But you probably didn’t read it anyway.
I think anyone with a working brain has figured out that the police has a side, at least in Brazil. I mean, every time there were demonstrations and walks asking for a fucking military coup and a new military dictatorship, the police would smile and pose for all sorts of photos with the participants.
Before the rabble invaded and broke into the buildings at the Plaza of Three Powers in January 8, 2023, it was like the police was escorting a group of friends. In some of the videos, the rabble would yell “We’re on your side!” to the police who finally had to fight them. Of course, the majority of police still identifies with those fucking bozonazis.
I think anyone with a working brain has figured out that the police has a side,
May have something to do with the fact that the institution of police was designed from the ground up to be a fascist one.
Because of prevailing attitudes and upbringing, a statistically significant portion of those cops come from the same pool that generates the white nationalists.
Those cops rise in the ranks to be the people in charge of the police force, where they have command over which protests get dealt with harshly and which don’t.
Because of the perceived nature of a cops authority simply because they carry a badge and a gun, the people who most want to become cops are the very people that should psychologically never be allowed to become one.
There’s also the fact that liberal protests don’t tend to be armed, (sort of goes hand-in-hand with liberals hating guns,) but white supremacist protests tend to be heavily armed. People noticed during the civil rights era that unarmed protests got violently busted; Cops had no qualms about firing into unarmed crowds to get them to disperse.
But heavily armed protests were politely watched from across the street. Because if you fire into an armed crowd, you may take out two or three protestors but then the entire rest of the protest can return fire.
This is exactly why the Black Panthers got started. People recognized that armed protests were allowed to continue, so they began arming protestors.
Anyone keen enough to be a police officer/politician/CEO should on no account be given the job.
Ok but this screenshot is clearly not from Tumblr
The white supremacists usually have a large number of firearms and actively use the second amendment. When aplied at other protests (see earty capital hill occupations) a similar response happens with police being more stand offish and refusing to take ground until absolutely necessary.
The white supremacists usually have a large number of firearms and actively use the second amendment.
Seems like the perfect situation for a hyper-militarized police force to me.
(Not to say I think the government should deploy a proto-military force against protests, but like, if they’re doing it anyway…)
You’re right, but in most situations any casualties are unacceptable. The police will minimize their presence if they believe the people protesting have the conviction to use firearms against them. This is ehy the second amendment is so important, as defense for every other amendment against the corrupt and tyrannical.
Do you have any bookmarks for evidence supporting this claim that you could share?
I’m not American, but from my perspective, the modern interpretation of your second amendment seems to cause way more oppression than it relieves in practice.
Also, if there is a group of people with the “conviction” to kill other people with lethal force, that would be exactly where police should be getting involved.
Getting a bit off-topic, but since you brought it up I’d be remiss not to respond.
Your thinking is sonewhat correct. A group with firearms and the heart to use them would be a threat if the first response is to shoot. In most cases however the protest attempts to remain peaceful. Also, in many cases, only a small percentage have that conviction, but that small amount scares the police enough to keep them back.
The real irony is that the 2nd amendment is ineffective against a tyrannical government, and things that are effective (making bombs, molotovs, weaponized consumer drones) are pretty explicitly banned.
Seems like the perfect situation for a hyper-militarized police force to me.
So you want more fascism?
Not to say I think the government should deploy a proto-military force against protests, but like, if they’re doing it anyway…
That’s because many of them are off-duty cops. And why would you arrest your friends?
When aplied at other protests (see earty capital hill occupations)…
…some other random fascist murders them instead, and then gets pardoned by Governor Abbott for it.
Self defense back at em.
May have something to do with the fact that the police is about as fascist an institution as institutions get.
How could police bully people at the white supremacist demonstration? Aren’t they all too busy marching?
Having to switch costumes would be such a pain in the ass for them.
Conversely, when’s the last time a peaceful protest actually worked
Before COINTELPRO became MO
You are in a bubble. A neo nazi march was banned two weeks ago in France before being allowed again by the judicial system. The exact same scenario has been repeating for pro-palestine protests.
At least in France, the scenario seems to be that the government wants to ban any controversial march and is being kept under control by the justice system.
Justice systems can only slow down or retroactively punish the government who controls the police.
Well just keep voting blue and hope things will change in 50 years
I haven’t tried to prove or disprove this statement, but it could easily be selection bias. If you’re in a bubble, you’re going to be very aware of violence done to people you sympathize with, and less aware of violence done to people you don’t.
I haven’t tried to prove or disprove this statement
Maybe do that before you form an opinion, and especially before you broadcast that opinion
Why should I? I’m having a conversation, not writing a paper.
Could be. Or it could be that you already knew your hypothetical isn’t true, so you’re deliberately concern trolling and sealioning.
Could be. Or you could be accusing me of bad faith because it feels nice and requires no effort.
In what bubble…the national stage?
Atmospheric bubble one might say
The protests that aren’t oppressed are the ones that are utterly ineffective. Think flash in the pan pussy hat protests, that are more about making the participants feel good about themselves than actually forcing change.
If a protest has the capability to last and continue bringing their issue to the forefront it will be met with oppression.
Probably accurate. Anything that upsets the status quo, costs business owners money, or otherwise threatens reelection chances is going to be met with force. Or, more likely, a smear campaign, ridicule, and then force
