Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Doug Tarnopol's avatar

100%.

The no-compliance attitude is spot on regardless of what anyone thinks of any proposed actions. Which should be thought through.

We will almost certainly never reach the numbers (ie, solidarity) required to win. Just look around you. People barely talk about this.

But in a sense (ethically) it doesn’t matter if we win: don’t collaborate in the destruction of everything, including your children’s future. And that’s literally true, given the flooring of carbon by these omnicidal nihilists.

(A word on the distraction of “optimism” vs “pessimism.” Fact: 99% of “optimists” think everything will work out, so they don’t have to do anything. Fact: 99% of “pessimists” think everything is doomed, so they don’t have to do anything. Note the functional similarity.)

Stick your neck out. Make good trouble. Join organizations. Spend time, money, and effort. Try to get the apathetic and/or frightened to grow a spine. Make these murderers of your posterity *work* at their omni-destruction.

Trust me: if you literally do and risk nothing, you will hate yourself. You will try to rationalize it but you will fail. There are fates worse than audits and harassment—or whatever lengths this scum will go to, and I think we should prepare for the worst.

So? Fuck ‘em all. Dissipate the comforting fog of diffused responsibility. They are literally coming for your children. Literally.

What are you going to do about it? What are we all, the minimally sane and supposedly non-sociopathic, going to DO about it?

I ask myself this question every day as I don’t do nearly enough, so I’m hardly holding myself above anyone. I’m just “mean” enough to state it baldly.

If failure is all that’s left, fail properly.

Expand full comment
LA Enck's avatar
3hEdited

The full irony here, if only in a secondary sense, lies in the fact that the 2nd Amendment, every docuher conservative ball bag’s favorite amendment, was drafted to prevent this very thing:

For over 200 years, it was viewed as a single, inseparable anti-Federalist clause that granted the states the right to raise and arm their own militias to prevent federal overreach.

The current interpretation recasting the 2nd Amendment as an individual civil Liberty entitling an individual to possess a gun is the product of conservative dickbags fevered imagination hoping to pump their stock values in fire arms companies, AstroTurfed in the ‘70s and enacted by regressive activist judge Scalia in DC v. Heller in quite possibly the worst-written judicial decision in the history of the Supreme Court.

A state national guard of course fulfills this constitutional requirement for an armed militia. Too bad it’s been pressed into the service of tyranny due to a legal loophole.

Interesting to see how the military, including the Guard, chooses to view their oath to protect and serve the Constitution from enemies domestic and domestic.

Expand full comment
28 more comments...

No posts