Who has one? And who says there were only two?
Come on, man. Iâm saying itâs not important. Pick a definition you like and count them up yourself if it matters to you.
Thatâs what I think. At least for the time being it looks awful on them and might influence those who can make a difference in the future.
Apologies. To clarify. Are you saying that a new fascist regime could be overcome peacefully?
If so, i agree. But I think we may not like the timescales in which it happens.
Check out some of the YouTube on thermal sites, civilians wonât get close enough before they are spotted and destroyed. The idea that American âPatriotsâ could make any kind of stand against the military is pure gun porn. When local populations were able to stand up to a military they were not Americans who had to get web-extenders for their tactical gear. And they didnât have to deal with modern sensors, they barely had to deal with night vision goggles.
Guerrilla groups do hold out against superior forces, but I donât if the âPatriotâ groups are ready for digging tunnels, crawling around in rubble and lots of getting killed.
At any rate, from the point of view of strategy for the government, the regular military is not the right tool to use to attack the population. The military would probably fall apart, disobey, do a coup if this were a big thing. The thing to do to launch the fascist state is to recruit the worst of the worst for special organizations like the Schutzstaffel or ICE.
When did I say anything about taking on the military?
Iâm irritable today, sorry.
@bigt2k4 said
Iâm looking at history and fascist takeovers have only ever been repelled by violence or military intervention.
I donât think thatâs true but if it is then maybe itâs because heâs looking at too few examples. If two is unfair ok but twenty would still be too few.
I would say Trumpism is fascist and believe it can be defeated by a popular nonviolent opposition.
People fixated on Chenowethâs claim that 3.5% support is enough to win but I donât think itâs worth spending energy on that kind of debate.
Itâs an old meme, but itâs still valid.
BLM was successful but definitely was not non violent. of course, any BLM movement would be categorized as terrorism by the state now.
I personally think this current adminâs approach wants to provoke violence, so resistance movements should not engage in it. generally you should not do what your opponent wants you to do.
A large majority of BLM protests (~94% according to WaPo) were peaceful. Otherwise I agree.
A nonviolent approach doesnât mean there wonât be conflict. That will include some level of violence. People disagree as to what is acceptable. I would draw the line at intentionally physically hurting people. Short of that, depends on circumstances. Like self-defense, ok.
I like to use it for Rush as well.
We also need to be very aware that some of the violence was either
-completely perpetrated by bad faith actors (see the guy in MN with the baton)
-actively riled up by bad faith actors in the crowd
-response to some overly aggressive acts by the police themselves
Daily Show take on Battle of Portland.
I watched a bunch of King County Sheriff helicopter videos and if theyâre tracking you, youâre completely fucked. They light you up like a 1000 watt bulb.
Iâm trying to figure out where this discussion started. I have 4 replies to myself and others talking about how no one can take on the military, but I havenât seen a single post suggesting anyone could.
This was a few posts after you mentioned something non-specific like âthe crowd attacking the enemyâ and Nun mentioning civilians having more guns than the military. Apologies for moving the conversation away from generalities to a specific scenario you werenât talking about.
I was referring to taking on the brownshirts. Hit and run tactics in urban areas can be used and can be successful with a bit of luck if executed properly.
Detroit sports reporter with the commentary
https://x.com/realtonygarcia/status/1977451828536397951?s=46

