13/09/2025
From the transcript to the below video (recorded in the wake of an attempt on Trump’s life) which I think can be applied to the Kirk murder as well.
"But, and this is a big but… but the sort of violence we saw when that dude tried to kill Trump, that sort of political violence is beyond the pale, accoring to people who consider Trump more or less a peer
And listen, I’m not going to be like yeah assassinate everyone. At the most basic level I just don;t think that it is as efficacious as others. If someone kills a president, or a presidential hopeful, or a senator, or whoever, another one will step forward and have pretty much the exact same level of power and the same beliefs as whoever was just killed.
This is acting just to act, not a thought out strategy, at least in my opinion here.
I’m not saying all political violence is wrong, just that a lot of it is pointless and pointless murder is no way to get anything done, I think.
But back to the subject at hand, what the powerful are afraid of here is the at least theoretical breaking down of the power structures on which they thrive - and we can certainly add in some personal fears here… but on top of the base mortality of these goons which is laid bare to these supremely arrogant loser ass dorks by an attack like this is the sudden, violent, unpredicatable transposition of power dynamics inherent in an act like this.
That’s the fear. It’s not violence they hate, it’s the levelling, the grading, of their existing, relied upon power dynamics, the breaking down the firewalls they use to protect themselves and rain fire down upon us.
The real fear is the annihilation of the imagined difference between them and us. The storming of the gated communities, the realization, as Mark Blyth likes to say, that the Hamptons are not a defensible position.
They rely on the certainty that hurting the powerful is a line which society simply cannot cross. They rely on the certainty that if you’re famous enough, if you have a enough money, and if you are elected or in the running to be elected to some sort of public office, then you’re sacrosanct.
That the systems, the hierarchy, the power dynamics are sacrosanct, that they remain forever static, reliable, and unchanged.
American politicians like Trump, Pelosi, Biden, and whoever else you want to name perpetrating political violence against the poor, the unhoused, the angry, the young, and the most vulnerable amongst us, that’s OK. It’s acceptable.
Breaking homeless camps, firing rubber bullets and maiming students is OK. Rhetorically supporting the ethnic cleansing of gaza is fine. Supporting the genocide of the palestinian people is acceptable. Selling the bombs, missiles, rockets, and weapons systems which utilize them to do those war crimes just makes financial sense.
Sometimes political violence is good they'll tell us if not with words then through their actions.
Running over political protestors is now a protected act in some locations. The political violence of one poor person running over another is ok - because it doesn’t effect power.
MAss incarceration? Bidens crime bill? Camps on the border? Immigrants being killed in the desert? Federal police arresting people for giving water to dehydrated migrants? Fine,l fine, no problem there. Because the violence is going down hill to the minorities, the homeless, the lgbtq communities, and the immigrants.
That political violence is nearly universally accepted in the united states and even more accepted in the federal government - None of these absolute ghouls cares about any of this.
But one famous, powerful politician gets an unexpected, surprise ear piercing and whoa whoa the violence has gone too far.
We must also take a look at the false equivalencies here and the hypocritical condemnations of violence. "
https://youtu.be/BmIxEkV4so4?si=AkhRinrb-wflWLO4
________________________
Our 'leaders' scream "No more political violence!" even as they perpetrate political violence upon the masses.In this episode we discuss these hypocrisies an...
