The images of the most effective human rights leaders have been so whitewashed.
Many of the greats were definitely killers. Nelson Mandela famously founded a "terrorist" organization and for years refused to condemn any partisan violence.
Many of the greats were definitely killers. Nelson Mandela famously founded a "terrorist" organization and for years refused to condemn any partisan violence.
This isn't apartheid. Get a hold on your horses and grow up. You live in a republic. You need to convince other people single payer health care is the right policy.
I think we've effectively already done that. What people actually want does not impact the way in which our government functions, despite popular belief.
The people in this country have absolutely no power and are tired of it. You can't vote out a parasitic system that exists only to extract as much from you as possible. The people who "represent" us only focus on culture war bullshit INTENTIONALLY, to distract from the fact that the one of two preselected candidates we have basically represent the same despicable capitalists and their same interests of stripping us of everything you have so they can have more shit they don't need, while the rest of us are fighting over their droppings.
You definitely haven't. Lots of Americans would be deeply unhappy if single payer healthcare were implemented tomorrow. Say what you will about whether they should be convinced, but they haven't been.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/494602-pol...
The US just elected a president despite a years-long coordinated media and legal effort to make him disappear, along with multiple assassination attempts. So, yes, what the people want does actually matter. They just don't happen to want what you think they should want.
Did literally anyone want Trump v Biden v 2.0? No. Literally nobody wanted that.
Did anyone actually want Kamala? No. Literally nobody wanted that.
>coordinated media and legal effort to make him disappear
Donald Trump is the most reported-on person of the past 10 years. This sentence does not make sense.
>along with multiple assassination attempts
You put this in the same sentence to make it seem like his "assassins" were on the same page as the media. They were not. Both of them were highly ineffective and downright cringey with their plans.
No, it doesn't. Unless what they want aligns with what the ruling class and interest groups want. [0] The propaganda arm of the ruling class, of course, endeavors to get the public on their side precisely because violence ensues when they push too far without public buy-in.
[0]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donor...
https://americansfortaxfairness.org/billionaire-clans-spend-...
The ruling class used its propaganda arm to manufacture consent for "I don't like him as a person, but he's good for the economy". I imagine this also represents many of their own views on Trump: what they appear to support is not necessarily what they support. That is, they might very publicly and loudly say they don't like him, but they love to see their decreased tax payment come tax season.
None of this is ideologically binary though. The ruling class is going to support whatever it thinks will allow it to continue to be the ruling class. They're not always in 100% agreement on what that is (or, at least, they want to have that appearance). If they aren't careful (and they haven't been as of late) and continue to whittle away at the populace's material conditions, it will lead to more violence, and possibly violent revolution.
It's why academics have been referring to the US as an oligarchy for a while now.
I miss old-school conspiracy theorists like Ron Unz who actually have sophisticated arguments for what they believe.
The internet is now full of handwavey conspiratorial BS that's "not even wrong". Who is writing all of this stuff?
At least the 9/11 truthers made specific false claims.
this guy: "You're literally a 9/11 level conspiracy theorist!!!!!"
It's not a point in your favor that your flavor of conspiratorial thinking is so widespread despite its thin evidence base.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/america-doesnt-really-have-a-w...
> This isn't apartheid
You're right. It is just segregation, a thing at which US (still) excels.
"People on twitter will really be like "you believe in voting? that pales in effectiveness to my strategy, firebombing a Walmart" and then not firebomb a Walmart" [0]
Well, Luigi firebombed a Walmart.
Is that a valid strategy for enacting societal change? Perhaps not. But this republic accepts and engages in war. And as Clusewitz says, ""War is the continuation of policy with other means." [1]
Perhaps Luigi is also pursuing policy change through other means. I have to say that watching American politicians and law enforcement agencies treat the man who at worst committed one murder (alleged; innocent until proven guilty) with the wrath and civil rights abuses previously only reserved for terrorists associated with 9/11 makes me believe that his actions genuinely shocked the system.
I'll be shocked if he makes it to trial alive.
[0] https://x.com/LinkofSunshine/status/1720538218628558969?lang...
When people responded positively or indifferently to the killing of Thompson, the ruling class took notice. That's REAL power, a new sensation to most Americans. I can hope only good things can come of this realization.
It seems to go like this:
1. One group calmly demands some sensible thing. They might do some protests.
2. The powers that be say no, because they like the status quo. They might arrest some people for peaceful protesting.
3. A different group does some violence.
4. The powers that be acquiesce to the first group because the alternative is continued violence. The second group has no basis to continue the violence once the first group is acquiesced to.
5. History paints the first group as the ones who caused change and the second group as bad people who shouldn't have done what they did.
It's got to be one of those psychological sales tricks. Door in the face technique?
Anyway, this is the ONLY way that regular people have EVER caused things to change for the better, so take that into consideration. (Whatever counter-example you're thinking of is probably not actually a counter-example)
Luigi, a person with zero history of political activism, with no record of organizing for anything, decides his only open political alternative is to kill the CEO of an insurance company, not registering new voters or organizing his workplace for better health coverage or driving old folks to the polls.
I don't know? That sounds less like rational political activism than a mentally disturbed lone gunman to me.
It really doesn't matter if people are convinced to want single payer or not, it isn't going to happen. There are many, many systems in place to prevent the will of the people from happening if the elite don't want it.
You can't be serious.
Works how?
What if the right began killing or indefinitely detaining left wing figures in retribution? How would that work?
Just let this play out in your mind, and ask how much of this sounds like some right wing militia fantasia set in 1995.
BTW I was in OKC in 1995. Thank God it didn't and doesn't work.
"It's not Halloween. Grow up, Peter Pan. Count Chocula."
If it’s ok to murder the CEO of a health insurance company, how about the CTO? How about a director? How about a manager of claims adjusters? How about an adjuster?
How about the CEO of Exxon? How about Twitter? What about a engineering manager of the team who actually implements the parts of these companies you think are evil?
Don’t tell me it can’t happen - if lots of people are on Luigi’s side, there will surely be a lot of diversity among the opinions of his followers. Somebody shot 3 people at the YouTube HQ because the company was biased against veganism.
What’s the limiting principle here? Are you sure you aren’t on the “ok to murder” list?