In times of struggle, we can draw comfort from picturing Trump, Musk, Thiel, Yarvin and their collaborators hanging out at Piazzale Loreto. I'm imagining the crowd enjoying their company and it warms my heart.

We are in the midst of the third American Revolution, which will remain bloodless, if we let the oligarchs escape the country.

We're finally dismantling the federal government! Sure hope it doesn't serve essential functions that I've taken for granted my whole life

completely agreed, no notes

I apologize for typing way too much but I got excited reading the words of someone who sounds like they're truly focused on coalition-building to defeat the fascist scum. I could probably type more too but I'll stop here so you have a chance to respond/ask whatever : ) 6/6

neighborhood, I don't know if they can ever be coaxed into direct action and it's probably better not to waste time on them. but for me and I'm sure a significant number of lib-ish folks who recognize the threat, it's easy to say we should vote AND commit to direct action between elections. 5/6

relieved to find a list of nonviolent, less risky forms of resistance that probably won't put me in jail even if I get caught, but can still make a material difference in disrupting ICE raids and such.

if they're really chickenshit and won't even print and post antifascist art in their 4/6

reasonable expectation for anyone who might be trapped in any political echo chamber. IMO, the most valuable critique of liberals that comes from lefties is that many libs feel like voting is enough and direct action is scary.

I am personally, deathly afraid of being prison raped, so I was 3/6

I'm working on here will appeal to other libs, so I offer it to you if you're looking to persuade more of them to direct action.

first let's use a cool label like "militant liberal" instead of trying to get them to renounce everything about liberalism and fully convert to leftism. this is not a 2/6

I try not to sublimate myself into any political label but before joining Bluesky, I'd say I was like 90% lib-aligned, maybe 30% left? I argued with some lefties, sat on the better arguments, and I've moved on some positions to align more lefty and less lib. maybe the syncretic framework 1/6

I think fascism is necessarily violent - persecuting "lesser" races in order to purify your population requires violence.

communism isn't inherently violent, but historically, the most murderous and militant faction usually is the one to decide the revolution is over. they usually aren't voted in.

anyway, when this thing kicks off and I have fascists in my area to ^#$!, I'm gonna have to watch my back around the hammer-and-sickle types and that's a bummer. I'll be careful not to stand between any of them too. history shows they tend to factionalize and *%# each other as readily as fascists.

An Investigation into Red-Brown Alliances Vagabond An Investigation into Red-Brown Alliances Third Positionism, Russia, Ukraine, Syria, and the Western Left 15 January 2018 This is an investigation...

I don't disagree with that, fully accept the critique that the current dem party is too caught in-between trying to actually govern in the interest of the people and preserve the current economic order, and they've paid the price.

as far as evidence, theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vaga...

plausible that republican voters could be peeled away from Trump, given the hindsight of Jan 6 and all. heck, the far-right gets credibility, or just discredits the left by absorbing the "why I left the left" types, so maybe it'll work for us? it didn't really, but I get the reasoning. 3/3

from the perspective of the campaign, could be damage control. you know that few of these leftists will vote either way, but by being vocally opposed to your candidate and ignoring your actual opposition, they suppress your turnout.

regarding the Cheney thing, during the campaign it seemed 2/3

I'm not blaming anything on anybody in particular, just want to be clear about that. I just wanted to try to give plausible reasons for your original question. but to rephrase your question into something I could defend: "why talk about the effect of the minority Left on the election at all?" 1/3

that Kamala was on their side you'd still have to contend with the anti-electoral rhetoric endemic to these spaces to get them to turn out in significant numbers.

I think at the bottom everything is an intense anti-establishment sentiment and on top, a coordinated attack on electoralism itself. 3/3

throwing the full weight of their endorsements and votes behind the Harris campaign even then? I don't.

3. online leftists are not only a smaller percentage of the population than they think, but of them, few believe in electoralism anyway. supposing you do the hard work of persuading them 2/3

good question. someone behind the scenes would probably have to give the real answers but I speculate:

1. nothing short of full divestment from Israel would have stopped the Genocide Joe memes.

2. if this is even something Biden could have done unilaterally, do you really see the online left 1/3

or maybe: first they came for the liberals because there's a tacit red-brown alliance already

extremists have more in common with each other in destroying the political center - accelerationists on both ends of the spectrum recognize moderate voices are an obstacle to their glorious LARP armageddon

Democratic states you have no obligations to cooperate with ICE TERROR RAIDS. Warrants, standards, procedures or tell administration to fuck off.

No cooperation with criminal Trump regime!

www.aeinstein.org/198-methods-...

“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo.

“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

a person says "the sky is red" and the other person corrects them the same way, and then they say "no, the sky is red and everyone who's ever looked up would tell you that." then after an hours-long exchange they finally concede that they were wrong.

that's what I meant by "confidently wrong"

I disagree strongly. let's take some hypotheticals:

one person says "the sky is red" when it's obviously blue. someone next to them says "red? it looks blue to me." then they say "ah, I just looked again and I think you're right, it's blue." this person is not what I would call confidently wrong.

I was replying to the post you blocked I think and Bluesky is weird sometimes and says "replied to you" even when someone's replying to someone else lol

too much again, if you're interested in a less public conversation about epistemic humility or history or anything adjacent to these, my DMs are open to you.

and if you don't take me up on that, no problem. I genuinely wish you well in correcting and expanding your body of knowledge. 5/5

curiosity that leads to a lifetime of learning is probably part of the reason you stuck it out. I wanna appeal to that part of you and ignore the part that's trying to eek out a win to save some face in this thread (I've done that before too, it's okay lol)

on that note and because I'm typing 4/5

it takes years of conscious effort to stop ourselves BEFORE making a strong claim to ask "is this something I have good reason to believe and could defend if pushed on it?"

if you're young, that intellectual patience is something you just won't have, but I'm typing all this because the spark of 3/5

wanted to make sure I figured out how I ended up repeating these falsehoods to avoid doing it again but had total source amnesia, I would interrogate myself as to how I could be so confident while being wrong.

I've caught myself before, we've all done it at some point and 2/5