http://archive.is/0gM8o
POLITICAL VIOLENCE IS A GAME THE RIGHT CAN’T WIN
David Hines - June 14, 2017
... The organizational capacity required to build a new world is the same organizational capacity have Lefties built to pressure government. So who’s in a better position to shape the big moment when it comes? Hell, if tomorrow civilization goes completely Mad Max: who’s got existing local networks of people who they’re used to turning out and doing stuff with on a regular basis? Answer to both questions: not the Right.
The first thing righties have to understand about Lefties is that lefties have a lot more practice building their own institutions, and assuming control of existing institutions, than their counterparts on the right do, and they share their practical experience with each other. Righties who like to build churches will build a church and worship in it. Lefties who like to build churches will build a church, write a book telling people how to build churches, go out and convince people church-building is the thing to do, run workshops on how to finance, build, and register churches, and then they’ll offer to arrange church guest speakers who’ll come preach the Lefty line.
Righties need to do a better job of teaching each other. And not just teaching the right-winger closest to them. The most organized groups on the Right are the pro-life and RKBA activists; everybody else on the Right should be learning from them.
The second thing to understand about Lefties is how they actually function. There’s a lot of independence involved.
This part is disingenuous:
Righties like hierarchy, so often think of the Lefties as taking marching orders from George Soros or whoever in a very hierarchical fashion. Not so much. A lot of left-wing organization is very decentralized, and they negotiate with other lefty groups as to exactly how they’ll do things and time things to not hurt each others’ work, so the labor movement’s march is not derailed by black-bloc window-smashing (see, for example, DIRECT ACTION, L.A. Kauffman’s excellent history of the Left from the 60s on).
By that logic, one could say ISIS and co are "decentralized" because the idiots who enlist technically don't "technically" take direct orders from some oligarch, yet they are functionally the pawns of oligarchs as far as funding/intelligence-aid/MSM/NGO structures go, it just happens by proxies
The Lefties call that approach “embracing a diversity of tactics,” which, taken to its logical extent, is a weasel-worded way of saying that the lefty mainstream is comfortable with radical leftist violence. People don’t like to talk about this much. But while it’s impossible to imagine, say, an abortion clinic bomber getting a cushy job at an elite university, that’s exactly what happened to a number of alumni of the 1970s leftist terror group known as the Weather Underground.
As fugitives, they were financially and operationally supported by members of the National Lawyers’ Guild; afterward, they were so normalized that the 9/11 issue of The New York Times infamously ran a profile lauding Weatherman alumnus Bill Ayres. By contrast, right-wing terrorist Eric Rudolph’s fugitive days were spent hiding in the wilderness because no one would help him. He was caught literally dumpster-diving for food. Potential right-wing extremists face opportunity costs that their left-wing counterparts do not.
The (organic, unorganized) right wing social circles themselves even have to constantly denounce and purge violence incitement and justification all the time. This even happened at a recent gun rally.
Occupy wall street was newer than Antifa, Antifa in some modern (new left) form has existed since the 90's.
OWS no longer exists, Antifa does, and it does so in a way where many politicians won't even denounce them.
Why is that? If TPTB can take down OWS , why does Antifa still exist? They are so bold and protected they almost got away with a literal hate crime on Hispanic Marines in Philly
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-25/philly-antifa-cell-calls-all-out-revolution-demands-gender-abolition-expropriate-lan
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-29/3rd-dc-antifa-arrested-charged-multiple-felonies-ethnic-intimidation-attack-latino
The absolute closest right wing equivalent to what Antifa does would be groups that are arguably obnoxious, but explicitly non violent
Righties frequently make allegations of paid protestors when Lefties get a bunch of people together. Again, that’s not how it works. Think of Lefty protests as being like a Grateful Dead concert. People absolutely got paid at a Grateful Dead concert: the band got paid, and the roadies got paid. But the Deadheads who followed the band around didn’t get paid. They weren’t roadies, they weren’t the band; they were there because they loved the music.
ISIS works the same way, it recruits based on pre existing Islamic sentiment and pre existing resentment to other groups, but it isn't really "organic". Isis and other terror leaders push them to absolutely insane fringe extremism.
The (unelected) leaders get rewards, the pawns are disposable. Why jacobin dances around this is interesting.
But if you understand all their logic, it makes sense why jacobin would also attack other "socialist" nations like China, siding with NED funded protestors over a nitpick judicial extradition law (an issue irrelevant to 99% of civilians), while co opting unrelated resentment against China and manipulating it
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/12/hong-kong-protests-leftists-international-support
Furthermore I'll cite the French "new left", and the CIAs admiration, as an example of useful idiots:
http://archive.is/qkk4n
In 1985 the CIA produced an analysis of the French arm of the New Left – the early post-Marxist intellectual movement.
Sometimes called "neo-marxism"
Somewhat bizarrely the Agency were broadly in favour of this new movement because it provided less resistance to US goals both in France specifically, and in the world more generally.
... It was this anti-Marxist or post-Marxist spirit that found favour with the CIA as they saw it as the beginning of the end for Socialism in France and a serious blow to the cultural Anti-Americanism of the country.
Such movements later developed into what we'd call "Neo-marxism" today, though such people always try to avoid such labels.
Another good explanation, in a neutral almost defensive cover of George Soros and astroturfed leftist activism:
The Truth About George Soros
http://archive.is/y4u4r
It was with this factoid in mind that, on the eve of the Kavanaugh confirmation vote the following day, Trump tweeted:
The very rude elevator screamers are paid professionals only looking to make Senators look bad. Don’t fall for it! Also, look at all of the professionally made identical signs. Paid for by Soros and others. These are not signs made in the basement from love! Troublemakers
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2018
“I’m sorry but the ‘Soros is paying them’ trope from the president of the United States is … wow,” gasped New York Times deputy Washington editor Jonathan Weisman. “No, George Soros isn’t paying Kavanaugh protesters,” read the headline of a Washington Post “Fact Checker” column. After Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, in response to a question from a Fox Business host about Soros paying protestors, ambiguously replied, “I have heard so many people believe that.
... But as a matter of simple factual accuracy, the assertion by Trump and other conservatives that Soros had “paid” individuals who protested the Kavanaugh appointment was true. No, he had not signed personal checks to the protesters. But that objection is pure semantics. Soros has, through his philanthropic organs, donated substantial sums of money to the groups that organized the anti-Kavanaugh demonstrations, including the one which staged the most high-profile of them all: the live-televised elevator confrontation. And according to an analysis undertaken by former Wall Street Journal reporter Asra Q. Nomani, “At least 20 of the largest groups” involved in the protests “have been Open Society grantees.”
If the substantive content of Trump’s claim could be faulted for anything, it should not be for supposedly coded anti-Semitism, but rather the cynical attempt to delegitimize protest itself as unrepresentative of popular sentiment. Trump has established a dichotomy in the minds of his supporters whereby those who oppose his policies are not fellow Americans but members of a “mob” in cahoots with “the fake news media” and other traitorous malefactors. That said, it is far from irrelevant that many or even some of the protesters, who were attempting to override the constitutional process of representative democracy through pressure techniques, were professional political activists deriving part of their salary from George Soros’ largesse.
In one of the countless pieces accusing Trump and other conservatives of anti-Semitism for their criticism of Soros, a writer for the website Jewish Currents proclaimed that, “The power of protest lies in its credibility as the voice of public opinion.” The use of the definite article in this sentence is highly revealing. The author—like an increasing number of Americans who have decided that, having inhibited their preferred political outcomes, the Electoral College and the United States Senate should be radically altered if not abolished—locates political legitimacy in protesters rather than democratic institutions. This is not the logic of republican democracy. Rather, it is the logic of the mob.
[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - (0 children)
[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - (0 children)