There is nothing wrong with "eating the rich", because if something were to happen to the rich, they brought it upon themselves, since they control the governance via lobbying, special interest groups, media, corporations, NGOs, etc
We should absolutely normalize "eating the rich" discourse, to remind the elites that they are not better than the common folk, so that the system can self-correct without resorting to the violence that can break apart society completely
> The tone has shifted in a way that people who would have never be considered violent, are out buying weapons.
I think that's what happens when people feel a peaceful discussion is going nowhere. The frustration only increases while available non-violent solutions appear to shrink. The Black Panthers, Palestinian terrorism... There's nothing good about it, but I find it entirely unsurprising.
Not only people feel that the non viability of peaceful dialogue doesn't exist, it is a reality that such dialogue is not going anywhere. As reiterated by the Genocidal regime's prime minister, peace in Palestine is not an option for Zionists.
The solutions are not appearing to shrink, rather the solutions are made to shrik, deliberately.
I don't think anti-capitalist is a useful label in this context. There doesn't have to be a contradiction in being pro-capitalist and also being pro-eat-the-rich. A situation of extreme inequality that is likely to precipitate an eat-the-rich sentiment is probably not an effective example of capitalism at work.
Miltia groups, and any such group as you are describing would be or are completely infiltrated. Al Qaeda was less of an organization and more of a brand name that was taken up by different groups who had no affiliation with eachother but did so to increase the amount of donations and resources they received from the community.
There are around 200 armed militias in the United States. Some of them have a national presence, working command structure, and tens of thousands of members.
There is nothing wrong with "eating the rich", because if something were to happen to the rich, they brought it upon themselves, since they control the governance via lobbying, special interest groups, media, corporations, NGOs, etc
We should absolutely normalize "eating the rich" discourse, to remind the elites that they are not better than the common folk, so that the system can self-correct without resorting to the violence that can break apart society completely
> The tone has shifted in a way that people who would have never be considered violent, are out buying weapons.
I think that's what happens when people feel a peaceful discussion is going nowhere. The frustration only increases while available non-violent solutions appear to shrink. The Black Panthers, Palestinian terrorism... There's nothing good about it, but I find it entirely unsurprising.
Not only people feel that the non viability of peaceful dialogue doesn't exist, it is a reality that such dialogue is not going anywhere. As reiterated by the Genocidal regime's prime minister, peace in Palestine is not an option for Zionists.
The solutions are not appearing to shrink, rather the solutions are made to shrik, deliberately.
[flagged]
Okay, let's call it "Zionists terrorism against the British Empire".
In fact, we can even top with: "And against the indigineous population of Palestine, of course."
Are you now ready to agree that, since the mid-1960s, some Palestinian resistance groups have also engaged in terrorism?
More to the point: why tailor your own language based on what the other side supposedly thinks or says?
Instead of just getting to the point, and saying what you know to be intellectually honest?
3 replies →
Who needs Al-Qaeda when you have oathkeepers, 3%ers and the like with hundreds if not thousands of members ready to take up arms?
We don't need foreign groups, we have homegrown ones.
The majority of members of those groups are federal informants or agents.
I don't think anti-capitalist is a useful label in this context. There doesn't have to be a contradiction in being pro-capitalist and also being pro-eat-the-rich. A situation of extreme inequality that is likely to precipitate an eat-the-rich sentiment is probably not an effective example of capitalism at work.
anti-oligarchy could be.
America has much worse inequality than during the French Revolution, just for reference
Miltia groups, and any such group as you are describing would be or are completely infiltrated. Al Qaeda was less of an organization and more of a brand name that was taken up by different groups who had no affiliation with eachother but did so to increase the amount of donations and resources they received from the community.
There are around 200 armed militias in the United States. Some of them have a national presence, working command structure, and tens of thousands of members.
US is already captured by oligarchy and special interest groups.
What needs to happen is return of power to the common folk, away from filthy rich billionaires and their special interest groups and NGOs