There are folks preparing for armed insurrection. I would say there are probably enough of those folks already, I’m not saying they’re wrong, just that it’s easy to think of that as a default solution and miss the much more important foundation building work.

Collective disaster preparedness is indistinguishable from preparing the logistical side of a revolution. The art of was says that for every person on the field of battle, 7 are in support.

The idea of the revolutionary with a gun is attractive, especially for those of us socialized male. But there are a lot of critical roles that are revolutionary and are not that. In a lot of ways the glorification of the militant serves the state by making the resiatence easier to kill. Focus on the things that are harder to justify killing people over and harder for feds to figure out how to disrupt. The armed part of the Panthers were used to justify the attacks, but the breakfast program is why they were a real threat.

My favorite example from the past of a revolutionary project I worked on was our local GDC’s food security committee. We started with a shared pantry for members. This allowed some members to engage in riskier things like striking because they knew they’d have food covered. Other times it just supported people through hard times. We did some guerilla gardening on some abandoned plots. I learned to forage. Eventually it grew in to a few folks regularly bringing canned food to houseless camps and providing them material support.

Houseless camps are a threat to the stability of the state. They are necessarily a lawless space which threaten the legitimacy of the state.

The biggest lesson we need to take away from the Syrian civil war is that whoever can fulfil the needs of the people becomes the regional power. The state will control resource (like food) to control people. If you can disrupt their ability to control those resources or provide alternatives, then the state has less power to leverage. Simultaneously, fascist terrorists will attack the infrastructure in order to inflict suffering and control people. In both cases, providing things like food to comrade makes resistence possible and undermines the legitimacy of an authoritarian state.

A state that cannot fulfil the needs of its people loses legitimacy. But the other pillar, aside from fulfilling needs, is the legitimacy of the infrastructure of violence. My other favorite project was an independent journalism and public records activism collective. Lucy Parsons Labs OpenOversight is a plarform for police accountability. Since police ultimately will never be held accountable, pointing this out weakens the state’s ability to leverage them without losing legitimacy with the people.

So erode the narrative of the state and build it’s replacement. If you read Che Guevara’s Guerilla Warfare or any book like that, you’ll realize that the literal fighting part is probably the smallest and least import part of a revolution. The fate of the revolution is decided long before anyone picks up a gun.

So go talk to your neighbors, find out what they need. Organize with comrades. Join food not bombs. Push local disaster prep groups to support houseless camps, since it’s also indistinguishable from supporting people after a major natural disaster. If you do all the legal and easily justifiable things then if a fed infiltrates your group they just end up doing a lot of work without being able to disrupt anything.

Finally, go read as much as you can about the Rojava. Learn about Libertarian Communalism and think about how that translates to the US context.

To do any of this you need to organize. Start a book club or join one. Join FNB. Find other people. Talk to your neighbors. You would be amazed how many normal people actually want radical change. I’ve talked to liberals who are really radicals who haven’t figured out how to make it actually work. Don’t discount normal folks, because revolution is impossible without their involvement.

Edit: a note on foraging, one of the critical things for a revolutionary guerilla force is soap. Most US cities have abundant horse chestnuts (buckeyes or conkers). These are natural soap and can be used for laundry detergent, hand soap, or body soap. To anyone in an urban area, you’re welcome.

[this space intentionally left blank]

Liberals would rather blame leftists than actually fight fascism.

White people finally figuring out what names are for… https://youtube.com/watch?v=63ldknEhOMM

People in functional countries don’t love their country. Only dictatorships do that, like Russia, China, and the US. People in normal countries acknowledge the problems and work to solve them, because there are actually solutions. If it is impossible to solve things in your country, why would you not hate your government?

Saying that anyone who points out flaws is an enemy agent is something cults and dictatorships do. It’s how Xi and Putin maintain control, it’s how Trump maintains control of his people, and it’s how America has worked for generations. You are responding like someone who is in a cult.

The US is not a democracy, it’s an oligarchy. This is a fact. We talk about it constantly. The fact that oligarchs basically choose who can and can’t run for the two major parties, and that the two major parties control the debates, mirrors the way the Chinese Communist Party controls who can run in elections. In both cases they let the people choose between the options that are acceptable to those who are actually in charge. This is just an observation of reality.

The US was built by slave owning oligarchs who didn’t want to pay taxes for the genocide they’d been doing. They built a system od government around controlling the population. Only landed white men could vote. The facade of the system has changed over time but the system itself remains largely the same: a small group of landed white men get to control basically everything. This is just an observation of history.

The idea that any colonizer state can possibly be democratic is just absurd. Any system bult on genocide and oppression won’t magically stop being built on genocide and oppression. The system must be completely replaced.

So the question to ask is if you advocate direct action to make sure this isn’t something that can ever happened again, or if you just advocate direct action so you can go back to brunch until next time?

The bus is heading for a cliff. Someone stands up and says, “this is stupid! We should change the way we make decisions so this can’t happen!” You hold that person down so they can’t stop the driver because you want to tell the driver to get ice cream after the bus drives off the cliff.

Fascists want to win because it means there will be less resistence from liberals, not because they will abide by the law. That’s a pretty important distinction that I don’t think liberals can integrate right now.

A successful coup is indistinguishable from a legal election, which is why they create as much chaos as possible and sew distrust before elections.

I’m not saying voting is completely useless but I am saying that you are deluded if you think voting will save you. It might not even buy you more time. Organize now. Figure out how you’re going to eat while you’re fighting. Download army manuals and start reading them. Start talking to other people about what to do when Trump takes power (acknowledging that he will claim power reguarless if he wins or loses the election).

A coup is less likely to be successful if you promise to revolt no matter how a fascist takes power. They rely on tricking enough people in to cooperating. If enough people will riot, some of the ghouls who back the fascist will back off and you lower their chances of success.

You don’t have time. Sure, vote anyway because it’s a low effort thing that might buy you time. It’s basically a free lottery ticket. You probably aren’t going to win, but it will be really great if you do and it’s super low effort. But you wouldn’t take out a loan assuming that ticket will pay off. Act like voting won’t actually buy you time, because it probably won’t.

At most it’s gonna pull some of the people from it before it drives of the cliff.

Vote for shit burgers or don’t. The time to build a movement was 4 years ago before liberals decided to go back to brunch. The thing is that fascism requires the complicity of liberals. A very small group of people could beat the driver to death, take the keys, and park the bus. Liberals will work with fascists to resist those people because they think they’ll get the keys back later and get ice cream. Liberals can’t accept that there is no ice cream and there never was.

You will never get a chance to vote for what you want became America isn’t a democracy. It’s not a democracy if a club of rich people choose who you get to vote for. That’s literally how Chinese democracy works except it’s the party instead of the oligarchs.

Liberalism is driving off a cliff and killing everyone because a third of people voted to do it.

There are 9 people on the bus. Five people vote to get shit burgers even though no one wants that, just because they think it will save them from the 3 people who vote to drive off the cliff. One person obstains. Two of the three people hijack the bus and drive off the cliff. Four of the five people blame the person who obstained as they drive off the cliff.

Fascists don’t care if they win or lose. Voting can’t save you once you’ve reached this point. You don’t have slightly high blood pressure that you can treat by eating right. You have cancer. You fight the cancer with everything you have or you die.

I wonder how many of them just got badges.

Myspace existed for a really long time after it ceased to be relevant. It actually only ceased to be relevant after they lost all the music that had been uploaded. That’s when independent musicians finally abandoned it, and it basically disappeared.

Reporting on “X” is what’s keeping it alive, IMHO. Stop reporting on it and it will stop being used. Alternatively, if there’s some major incident, that would probably be enough to finish it. It may eventually go bankrupt between now and then, but it’s actually pretty useful for people wanting to spread nazi propaganda so the far right will probably keep pumping money in until it collapses.

C-x C-f /sudo::/path/to/file

Yeah, in emacs you use tramp to open the file with /sudo::

Maybe abolish slavery? Perhaps actually honor treaties with indigenous people?

Oh, you aren’t looking for an answer because you’re an idiot. Go on with your life then.

The logic should apply both ways, but it can’t because patriarchy prevents it. Meanwhile, people who don’t have a critique of patriarchy can’t really explain why this is the case. They simply point to it and say, “this is unfair and it hurts men,” without having enough context to actually fix the underlying problem.

Under patriarchy, men are the only ones seen as having agency so they are assumed to always be the aggressor. The assumption is true, even when the reality is not. At the same time, men are socialized to ignore boundaries meaning that most of the time they will be the aggressor, reinforcing the assumption and justifying the application of laws that align with that assumption.

Men will always be the abusers and never the abused. Men will never be seen as the care givers, even when they are the actual care givers. Men will always be the rapist, never the victim. And, because society tells men these things, we often enact them against our own interests.

The fact that this logic doesn’t make sense is something feminists have been calling out for a long time as part of the larger system of patriarchy. While patriarchy usually gives more power to men, it doesn’t always. But even when it does seem to benefit men, it still harms men… Just like how every other system of oppression harms everyone involved, not just the oppressed.

See: MRAs failing to understand how this kind of “reverse sexism” is really just the same patriarchy that feminists describe, and that basically every “gotcha” example is really just an example of patriarchy hurting men… In exactly the way feminists have been describing for decades.

Parking is a problem only in cities. 20% of the population lives rural.

I was specifically talking about cities. I’m glad we can agree that 80% of people should not own cars. Let’s talk about the rest.

As someone who grew up in actually rural areas, I need to point out that there are two types of “rural.” There’s farm land and there’s suburbs. Suburbs are a parasite that kills cities. They drain city resources without having a high enough density to pay for those resources with their taxes. They fill cities with cars and they don’t produce anything of value. Suburbs must be destroyed.

Farmers actually do something useful. They, and the communities that support them, should be treated like full citizens instead of as a second class. This means they also deserve the same infrastructure, bike lanes and train stations, as cities. There are some trade offs to living in rural areas. Things do take longer and are harder to get to. You have to do a lot of things yourself.

When I was growing up we drove our trash to the dump because we didn’t have garbage service. Personal vehicles sometimes make sense here, but absolutely not giant trucks to haul some milk and eggs. Motorcycles and kei cars are more than enough in most cases. Even for kei cars you should have to justify it purchasing it by providing you live in a rural area and to have a truck should require a commercial license.

But people who just want to use rural areas to defend their use of cars in cities often don’t realize how many people in rural areas can’t drive. They don’t know the absolute hell of being completely isolated and reliant on a parent to do anything. They don’t know how hard it can be to take care of someone who’s disabled or elderly, who relies on a caretaker to get to every appointment or activity. Functional infrastructure would significantly improve the lives of a lot of rural people, and cars often get in the way of that. You will grow old and you will be part of that group. Do you want to be trapped? With functional infrastructure, elderly people can use mobility scooters or microcars safely in bike lanes.

Rural areas don’t have to be car centric. There’s nothing innate about rural areas the forces people to rely on cars for everything. They’re designed that way. They can be designed differently.

Excellent? Sort of inconvenient, people have to walk to the nearest station. Especially with groceries. And impractical for the elderly, disabled and small children.

The elderly are often not safe to drive, so your solution is not more convenient. It’s to trap them at home or have them risk killing someone. A functional city that’s not designed around cars makes it easy to get groceries by other means, more convenient means that don’t involve the potential of accidentally murdering someone. There aren’t really any places in Amsterdam, for example, where you’re more than a few minutes bike ride from one or a half-dozen grocery stores.

It can be inconvenient to walk to a station, but it’s far more inconvenient to not be able to walk or bike anywhere because your whole city is just roads and parking lots. Cars kill cities by decreasing density below the point where commerce is sustainable. Go look at a picture of Huston if you want to see what happens when you let cars win.

If everything is so efficient, why on earth needs a tram 15 kWh per passenger per 100 km?

As opposed to 20 for EVs? Even cherry picked numbers beat cars. Oh and why are those numbers even that bad? Cars. Cars decrease demand for transit. The London metro is 4.4.

And that 20 kWh per 100p-km doesn’t take in to account manufacturing, shipping, and disposal or any consumables like…uh… tires, which are a petroleum product. Well tuned vehicles operate more efficiently, which is why personal vehicles can never be as efficient as well used mass transit.

There’s a fundamental limit on the efficiency of large scale transit and it’s realized by mass transit. Any possible improvemnt that could be made for individual transit could just as easily be applied back to mass transit for a higher efficiency.

Your ride sharing example highlights the same thing again. That’s actually pretty similar to the last mile soliton for Sound Transit in Seattle. They send a van to pick people up and drop them off at transit stops, which reduces the justification for personal cars even more.