I agree with you on a lot of comments, but I disagree pretty strongly here. I do say that we shouldn’t escalate to outright violence unless and until there is no other option. I say that because:
Violence is a ratchet. It will permanently increase the violence. Yes, violence is already being perpetrated, but more innocent people will be killed faster, which will (following this philosophy) increase the justified violent resistance which will increase the state violence, and so on. It’s inexorable accelerationism.
Violence is a very uneven playing field. Yes, Americans have guns, but the state has sooo much more gunpower. This is not a counter-FAFO. Any violence by protesters can and likely will be returned 50x. The administration doesn’t even see people as humans beyond PR concerns. Regular people will disproportionately suffer.
Declaration of martial law or the Insurrection Act will also accelerate violence, and lead to other decay of rule of law, including increased use of concentration camps, edicts that erode or outright suspend the First Amendment (pending totally objective Supreme Court review (…)), suspension of elections, and further abuse of immigrants (yes, it can get much much worse). I’m pretty sure imagining this is Stephen Miller’s animating motivation. Speaking of which…
Stephen Miller certainly has thought many steps ahead to total fascist takeover, and it’s clear he needs a casus belli to move to the next step. We don’t even have a clear leader, much less one with the training and planning to counterbalance a real fascist with (as I believe Miller has) full control of state power. Do we know what the step after martial law is? Is someone preparing to counter all the next post-1933 steps that are certain to follow? Or are we just reacting? What’s the longer strategy?
The game board and rules are constantly changing. Sometimes the hardest but the smartest thing to do is wait for conditions to improve. Trump’s health is objectively bad, he may die on his own tomorrow, losing the “charismatic” figurehead, and also losing the demented, easily-manipulated nexus point for all of the other evil working behind the scenes. Vance can’t be Trump and once he’s on the throne, his ego will be too big for Stephen Miller. There’s a reason why Miller and his white supremacist squads are rushing here - this is the most opportune moment. So why should we rush to give it to them?
It has worked in other cities already. Portland responded and won by nonviolent resistance. Yes, it may have gone differently if there was a cold-blooded murder like Renee Good. But we choose between (a) resisting escalation and following our model for thwarting martial law that has already worked, or (b) escalating and giving the Trump admin a model they now know will work for martial law in every other city (just kill some citizens and get everyone pissed off enough to declare it). The rational choice is (a).
I know the morally justified, most emotionally satisfying thing right now is to give as we are getting. But that doesn’t make it strategically wise.
Yes, they increase violence, we do nothing, they increase violence… A ratchet literally works when one side does nothing and the other keeps doing shit.
Violence is happening regardless, doing nothing won’t stop it. It’s uneven because only one side is doing it, like… It’s “uneven” when one side acts and one doesn’t.
They’re gonna do it even if we don’t react.
No, he doesnt. Because any idiot should be able to tell by now if they don’t get the reaction they want, they’ll just fucking lie. Megan Good didn’t attack anyone, but they’re saying she did and used that as justification to kill her.
Because we’re letting them do whatever they want.
“Won”… two people got shot a week ago and ICE is still there abusing power, are you experiencing such learned helplessness that a week without a extrajudicial killing on the streets in one city means we “won”?
Edit:
To be clear, I’m not advocating for Mad Max shit.
The threat of a visibly armed populace is enough to melt ICE.
Hell, you can’t even really find videos of how they react to armed protestors, because ICE just leaves when they see guns out.
They’re out looking for the easiest possible targets. So take a lesson from people who have dealt with this for fucking decades and stay dangerous so you stay safe
I upvoted your reply, I get it and feel the frustration. Sorry for the long response (this is effectively therapy for me at this point):
Yes, they increase violence, we do nothing, they increase violence… A ratchet literally works when one side does nothing and the other keeps doing shit.
Right, but to be clear, my point for this first bullet is that people should understand that by acting with violence, it won’t be a one-time “fight back” moment, they are voting with action to permanently increase the violence of future confrontations for both protestors and bystanders.
Violence is happening regardless, doing nothing won’t stop it. It’s uneven because only one side is doing it, like… It’s “uneven” when one side acts and one doesn’t.
This isn’t quite what I’m saying. Obviously the fascists are the ones causing the violence. I’m saying that they have the advantage in violence. They have the literal state monopoly on violence. It’s like someone issuing a challenge to “beat Michael Phelps,” and you agree to a 200 meter butterfly swim rather than a chess match. Violence is an uneven playing field that favors the fascists.
They’re gonna do it even if we don’t react.
Yes, they’re going to do something even if we don’t react. But no, it’s not necessarily martial law. I feel like people aren’t understanding what “plausible” martial law and the Insurrection Act invocation will really mean. It can and will get unimaginably worse, for not just those who choose it, but for millions of innocent people. It’s possible we can’t avoid that, eventually, but the rational choice is certainly to do what we can to avoid it.
No, he doesnt. Because any idiot should be able to tell by now if they don’t get the reaction they want, they’ll just fucking lie. Megan Good didn’t attack anyone, but they’re saying she did and used that as justification to kill her.
It’s hard to see it, but there is in fact a limit to how much they can lie effectively. Their base, 30% of the population, will believe whatever Fox News says is real, those oligarch-backed networks will stoke the fire or enlarge the wound. But they need something to burn or bleed first. They can’t pull the Overton window too far too fast to become unplausible, and either way, it makes no sense to help them build their preferred narrative. That changes of course once we have martial law. At that point, we’re Russia - hypernormalization, no tie to reality. It’s vital to avoid that.
Because we’re letting them do whatever they want.
Again, need more imagination here. We have in order of effect-to-cause: actions (e.g., murdering Renee Good) built on principles (state violence against left-leaning opposition is always justified) built on theory (fascism) built on motives (Stephen Miller views non-white people as inhuman and wants to remove them by any means necessary) built on foundational reality (Trump is a demented narcissist who is easily manipulated).
A response to an action, or at best a competing principle some advocate (that responding to state violence with violence is justified), won’t change any of the lower causal steps in this chain. A change to foundational reality (Trump dying of Cheeseburger 4,205,243) upsets every link in that chain. It’s not a bet, but it’s one way which the game board can clearly change for the better. Putin knows this, for example, and it’s why when he’s losing he will be the one calling for peace talks through back channels. “Wait it out” is a valid and sometimes superior strategic choice.
“Won” two people got shot a week ago and ICE is still there abusing power, are you experiencing sick learned helplessness that a week without a extrajudicial killing on the streets mean we “won”?
I know that word would be easily misunderstood, but the win condition here is to not have martial law and a suspension of rule of law, at which point fascism becomes nearly impossible to dislodge without a world war and millions of deaths. You may say it’s already effectively suspended. Again, I think they are trying, they are test-casing, but we are not there yet. We must not give that to them.
Edit[…]
Thanks for the clarification. After all that is said, I agree, if people want to open carry, that may dissuade ICE violence, sure. I support people doing that. But without very clear training and better-than-ICE escalation policy, I suspect it will just be more dry kindling waiting for a match. A match to a pile of dry brush is much easier for Miller to work with, versus building the entire fire from scratch.
Jan 6 was stopped with a single bullet, ICE is also emboldened due to lack of immediate consequences and would likely back off when met with resistance. Again, I’m saying the presence of guns and the implication of violence is enough
I’m saying that they have the advantage in violence. They have the literal state monopoly on violence.
The state’s mo only on violence is part of the social construct and only exists when people have the belief the system is relatively fair. The majority no longer believe that.
But no, it’s not necessarily martial law.
They’re literally using ICE killing peaceful protestors as justification. Like, right now, today they’re doing it:
President Trump has threatened to impose martial law on Minnesota just hours after ICE goons shot a man during an enforcement operation.
“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump declared on Truth Social on Thursday morning, ending with his trademark sign-off, “Thank you for you attention to this matter! President DJT.”
Jan. 6th was stopped because they were a violent mob who didn’t think far enough ahead to expect to be shot. ICE is not that - at least Noem and Miller know and want there to be violence against ICE. It’s fundamentally a different situation.
Otherwise, I’ll just address the martial law point: Trump threatening it only gives away the game and is seeking to normalize it. It shows how much they palpably want to invoke it. If he could, he would. Him saying this is to test the waters, see if republicans will let him do it, sure, but also an admission he cannot yet do it.
Trump is effectively an id in a body suit. That means even when he is manipulating, he is revealing his motivations and admitting to his weaknesses.
There’s is so much politicing that’s happening behind the scenes, it’s hard to explain how this system actually works.
Trump “threatening” martial law and “enacting” martial law are 2 very different things. And providing them the justifications to enact would be a very stupid thing. Like you said, him throwing that out there is him testing the waters. It means that behind closed doors, there’s a non zero, X number of Republicans who have made it known they will not stand for it. If that number was zero and he had the full backing of Congress AND supreme Court, he would have done it by now and cancelled the midterms, etc…
Now, what we don’t know are if there were any conditions tied to that, for example “i will not stand for martial law being declared without full on violence in the streets” or “i will not stand for martial law being declared without one of ‘our guys’ being punched in the face first”. We don’t know how many lines there are or where the lines are being drawn, but they are there, and the administration is currently doing the calculus to get to their end result.
“He’s going to do it regardless” then he’ll face backlash in his own party. Watching the last few years unfold had proved that Republicans were once willing to forgive a lot to reach their end goals, but recently many have been breaking off since reaching some of those goals. Not to mention, the people’s reaction if he just does it regardless. There’s certainly people behind the scenes calculating not just the public’s reactions but our allies too, and trying to apply pressure where they can.
Jan. 6th was stopped because they were a violent mob who didn’t think far enough ahead to expect to be shot. ICE is not that
Eh…
I’d argue not only do they act the same, a high percentage of recent ICE were likely at 1/6 in the mob.
but also an admission he cannot yet do it.
I think the only reason he hasn’t done it yet, is he needs to hold it thru midterms to fuck with or outright cancel elections in blue states via puppet appointees.
Do it now, he has to hold it 10 months. Do it 9 months from now, you only got to hold it a couple days.
We just gonna wait till they think it’s the perfect moment?
That means even when he is manipulating, he is revealing his motivations and admitting to his weaknesses.
It ain’t 5d chess, he wants to take over immediately, he wanted to do it in 2017. It’s just about how much the people around him can convince him it’s better to wait. First term.people were just bullshitting him. But one day Stephen Miller is going to say “today” and shit will get really fucking bad regardless of how much or how little weve been reacting.
If we don’t pick the day, they’ll pick the exact day they’re most likely to succeed.
Yes, they’re going to do something even if we don’t react. But no, it’s not necessarily martial law. I feel like people aren’t understanding what “plausible” martial law and the Insurrection Act invocation will really mean. It can and will get unimaginably worse, for not just those who choose it, but for millions of innocent people. It’s possible we can’t avoid that, eventually, but the rational choice is certainly to do what we can to avoid it.
No, it’s not necessarily the rational choice. Not if, for example, delaying to act causes us to lose in the long run, e.g. by giving the fascists more time to shift that Overton window slowly enough. In fact, you yourself acknowledge that in another part of your comment: that we have a limited window of opportunity before hypernormalization kicks in, and we’d better not squander it.
Your theory is valid of course - delaying could work in their favor. But my core point is that if there is citizen-led violence in response to ICE, the argument is moot, because no hypernormalization would be necessary to make a (low-information voter-, or Supreme Court-) plausible argument for martial law.
I agree with you on a lot of comments, but I disagree pretty strongly here. I do say that we shouldn’t escalate to outright violence unless and until there is no other option. I say that because:
Violence is a ratchet. It will permanently increase the violence. Yes, violence is already being perpetrated, but more innocent people will be killed faster, which will (following this philosophy) increase the justified violent resistance which will increase the state violence, and so on. It’s inexorable accelerationism.
Violence is a very uneven playing field. Yes, Americans have guns, but the state has sooo much more gunpower. This is not a counter-FAFO. Any violence by protesters can and likely will be returned 50x. The administration doesn’t even see people as humans beyond PR concerns. Regular people will disproportionately suffer.
Declaration of martial law or the Insurrection Act will also accelerate violence, and lead to other decay of rule of law, including increased use of concentration camps, edicts that erode or outright suspend the First Amendment (pending totally objective Supreme Court review (…)), suspension of elections, and further abuse of immigrants (yes, it can get much much worse). I’m pretty sure imagining this is Stephen Miller’s animating motivation. Speaking of which…
Stephen Miller certainly has thought many steps ahead to total fascist takeover, and it’s clear he needs a casus belli to move to the next step. We don’t even have a clear leader, much less one with the training and planning to counterbalance a real fascist with (as I believe Miller has) full control of state power. Do we know what the step after martial law is? Is someone preparing to counter all the next post-1933 steps that are certain to follow? Or are we just reacting? What’s the longer strategy?
The game board and rules are constantly changing. Sometimes the hardest but the smartest thing to do is wait for conditions to improve. Trump’s health is objectively bad, he may die on his own tomorrow, losing the “charismatic” figurehead, and also losing the demented, easily-manipulated nexus point for all of the other evil working behind the scenes. Vance can’t be Trump and once he’s on the throne, his ego will be too big for Stephen Miller. There’s a reason why Miller and his white supremacist squads are rushing here - this is the most opportune moment. So why should we rush to give it to them?
It has worked in other cities already. Portland responded and won by nonviolent resistance. Yes, it may have gone differently if there was a cold-blooded murder like Renee Good. But we choose between (a) resisting escalation and following our model for thwarting martial law that has already worked, or (b) escalating and giving the Trump admin a model they now know will work for martial law in every other city (just kill some citizens and get everyone pissed off enough to declare it). The rational choice is (a).
I know the morally justified, most emotionally satisfying thing right now is to give as we are getting. But that doesn’t make it strategically wise.
Yes, they increase violence, we do nothing, they increase violence… A ratchet literally works when one side does nothing and the other keeps doing shit.
Violence is happening regardless, doing nothing won’t stop it. It’s uneven because only one side is doing it, like… It’s “uneven” when one side acts and one doesn’t.
They’re gonna do it even if we don’t react.
No, he doesnt. Because any idiot should be able to tell by now if they don’t get the reaction they want, they’ll just fucking lie. Megan Good didn’t attack anyone, but they’re saying she did and used that as justification to kill her.
Because we’re letting them do whatever they want.
“Won”… two people got shot a week ago and ICE is still there abusing power, are you experiencing such learned helplessness that a week without a extrajudicial killing on the streets in one city means we “won”?
Edit:
To be clear, I’m not advocating for Mad Max shit.
The threat of a visibly armed populace is enough to melt ICE.
Hell, you can’t even really find videos of how they react to armed protestors, because ICE just leaves when they see guns out.
They’re out looking for the easiest possible targets. So take a lesson from people who have dealt with this for fucking decades and stay dangerous so you stay safe
I upvoted your reply, I get it and feel the frustration. Sorry for the long response (this is effectively therapy for me at this point):
Right, but to be clear, my point for this first bullet is that people should understand that by acting with violence, it won’t be a one-time “fight back” moment, they are voting with action to permanently increase the violence of future confrontations for both protestors and bystanders.
This isn’t quite what I’m saying. Obviously the fascists are the ones causing the violence. I’m saying that they have the advantage in violence. They have the literal state monopoly on violence. It’s like someone issuing a challenge to “beat Michael Phelps,” and you agree to a 200 meter butterfly swim rather than a chess match. Violence is an uneven playing field that favors the fascists.
Yes, they’re going to do something even if we don’t react. But no, it’s not necessarily martial law. I feel like people aren’t understanding what “plausible” martial law and the Insurrection Act invocation will really mean. It can and will get unimaginably worse, for not just those who choose it, but for millions of innocent people. It’s possible we can’t avoid that, eventually, but the rational choice is certainly to do what we can to avoid it.
It’s hard to see it, but there is in fact a limit to how much they can lie effectively. Their base, 30% of the population, will believe whatever Fox News says is real, those oligarch-backed networks will stoke the fire or enlarge the wound. But they need something to burn or bleed first. They can’t pull the Overton window too far too fast to become unplausible, and either way, it makes no sense to help them build their preferred narrative. That changes of course once we have martial law. At that point, we’re Russia - hypernormalization, no tie to reality. It’s vital to avoid that.
Again, need more imagination here. We have in order of effect-to-cause: actions (e.g., murdering Renee Good) built on principles (state violence against left-leaning opposition is always justified) built on theory (fascism) built on motives (Stephen Miller views non-white people as inhuman and wants to remove them by any means necessary) built on foundational reality (Trump is a demented narcissist who is easily manipulated).
A response to an action, or at best a competing principle some advocate (that responding to state violence with violence is justified), won’t change any of the lower causal steps in this chain. A change to foundational reality (Trump dying of Cheeseburger 4,205,243) upsets every link in that chain. It’s not a bet, but it’s one way which the game board can clearly change for the better. Putin knows this, for example, and it’s why when he’s losing he will be the one calling for peace talks through back channels. “Wait it out” is a valid and sometimes superior strategic choice.
I know that word would be easily misunderstood, but the win condition here is to not have martial law and a suspension of rule of law, at which point fascism becomes nearly impossible to dislodge without a world war and millions of deaths. You may say it’s already effectively suspended. Again, I think they are trying, they are test-casing, but we are not there yet. We must not give that to them.
Thanks for the clarification. After all that is said, I agree, if people want to open carry, that may dissuade ICE violence, sure. I support people doing that. But without very clear training and better-than-ICE escalation policy, I suspect it will just be more dry kindling waiting for a match. A match to a pile of dry brush is much easier for Miller to work with, versus building the entire fire from scratch.
Jan 6 was stopped with a single bullet, ICE is also emboldened due to lack of immediate consequences and would likely back off when met with resistance. Again, I’m saying the presence of guns and the implication of violence is enough
The state’s mo only on violence is part of the social construct and only exists when people have the belief the system is relatively fair. The majority no longer believe that.
They’re literally using ICE killing peaceful protestors as justification. Like, right now, today they’re doing it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-threatens-martial-law-in-blue-state-in-wild-morning-rage-post/ar-AA1UhmfO
Again, they’re building it regardless, preventing local/state from investigating, and now saying they won’t either.
Once again, it’s been just a few hours since Trump said if anymore people get killed by ICE, he’s doing martial law.
Jan. 6th was stopped because they were a violent mob who didn’t think far enough ahead to expect to be shot. ICE is not that - at least Noem and Miller know and want there to be violence against ICE. It’s fundamentally a different situation.
Otherwise, I’ll just address the martial law point: Trump threatening it only gives away the game and is seeking to normalize it. It shows how much they palpably want to invoke it. If he could, he would. Him saying this is to test the waters, see if republicans will let him do it, sure, but also an admission he cannot yet do it.
Trump is effectively an id in a body suit. That means even when he is manipulating, he is revealing his motivations and admitting to his weaknesses.
There’s is so much politicing that’s happening behind the scenes, it’s hard to explain how this system actually works.
Trump “threatening” martial law and “enacting” martial law are 2 very different things. And providing them the justifications to enact would be a very stupid thing. Like you said, him throwing that out there is him testing the waters. It means that behind closed doors, there’s a non zero, X number of Republicans who have made it known they will not stand for it. If that number was zero and he had the full backing of Congress AND supreme Court, he would have done it by now and cancelled the midterms, etc…
Now, what we don’t know are if there were any conditions tied to that, for example “i will not stand for martial law being declared without full on violence in the streets” or “i will not stand for martial law being declared without one of ‘our guys’ being punched in the face first”. We don’t know how many lines there are or where the lines are being drawn, but they are there, and the administration is currently doing the calculus to get to their end result.
“He’s going to do it regardless” then he’ll face backlash in his own party. Watching the last few years unfold had proved that Republicans were once willing to forgive a lot to reach their end goals, but recently many have been breaking off since reaching some of those goals. Not to mention, the people’s reaction if he just does it regardless. There’s certainly people behind the scenes calculating not just the public’s reactions but our allies too, and trying to apply pressure where they can.
Eh…
I’d argue not only do they act the same, a high percentage of recent ICE were likely at 1/6 in the mob.
I think the only reason he hasn’t done it yet, is he needs to hold it thru midterms to fuck with or outright cancel elections in blue states via puppet appointees.
Do it now, he has to hold it 10 months. Do it 9 months from now, you only got to hold it a couple days.
We just gonna wait till they think it’s the perfect moment?
It ain’t 5d chess, he wants to take over immediately, he wanted to do it in 2017. It’s just about how much the people around him can convince him it’s better to wait. First term.people were just bullshitting him. But one day Stephen Miller is going to say “today” and shit will get really fucking bad regardless of how much or how little weve been reacting.
If we don’t pick the day, they’ll pick the exact day they’re most likely to succeed.
Thats just relaity
No, it’s not necessarily the rational choice. Not if, for example, delaying to act causes us to lose in the long run, e.g. by giving the fascists more time to shift that Overton window slowly enough. In fact, you yourself acknowledge that in another part of your comment: that we have a limited window of opportunity before hypernormalization kicks in, and we’d better not squander it.
Your theory is valid of course - delaying could work in their favor. But my core point is that if there is citizen-led violence in response to ICE, the argument is moot, because no hypernormalization would be necessary to make a (low-information voter-, or Supreme Court-) plausible argument for martial law.