At what point is the collective pushed to violence

Basketball Jones

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
(X-post from the Canadian Trucker Convoy 2022 thread and Joe Biden News Megathread)
I'm going to ask something that I know is going to come off as incindiary, so I'd like to preface this whole post before I start by saying I'm not suggesting anyone do a terrorism in real life or Minecraft. If things weren't at such a boiling point around the world, I would probably not feel any reason to make such a statement. I'll probably x-post this in a couple of other threads because I want a wide swath of opinions and thoughts, as this is more a question that has been rolling around my head since I was a child (and I'm tired of getting the same answer of "look at history" because that's part of the issue I'm having). I'm fully willing to admit that I'm not very informed and definitely ignorant when it comes to this subject, so forgive me if I come off as crass or maybe too blunt.

At what point do people, as a collective, decide that the only option is violence and turn on their leaders?

I always wondered this in class when we'd talk about Communism or the Third Reich, or really any other kind of monarchy or government overreach. It was easy to explain how a country go to that point and how a ruler or leader was able to easily usurp rights away from the people. But the part I never understood was how it always happened and was allowed to happen, and then one day everyone just decided they weren't alright with it. It's the middle area between the two events that I'm asking about specifically. When is everyone suddenly in agreement that it's gone too far. That's the answer that seems to vary from every tyranical situation, and why the answer "look at history" never sits well with me. The history doesn't look to be entirely consistent on that point.

It's easy to answer how much it takes for one person to break. I think all of us could answer that question. But at what point does an entire country break? Is it when everyone's family and friends starts disappearing in the night? When money dries up? When the streets are lined with poverty? When promises of the rich and powerful to the poor and starved stay unfulfilled? When your kids are taken as property of the ruler and turned into workers/drones/tools? Is it when the missles start falling on your neighborhood? Is it when the tanks roll down your city block? When air raid sirens become another day that ends in "y"? When your church is targeted? When your politics are targeted? When your guns and weapons are taken?

All of this stuff still happens in the modern day. We can look to any country in the world and see some enactment of the same things playing out that have played out throughout history. Not to sound condescending, but this is why the "look to history" answer bothers me and comes off as a non-answer. It implies that we solved the issues of the past and that we need only look to them for answers on how to prevent them in the present day. Except that isn't true at all; they're all still happening. Looking to history didn't prevent anything.

Maybe that's the answer right there. Maybe everyone is always thinking the same thing, but they're waiting for someone else to fire the--metaphorical--first shot, and after that is when everyone unifies. I think that's honestly why there's an increase in fed-posts on every board and thread I've been in (aside from the standard edgy teens and actual glowniggery). I think there is a contigient of people on the internet that are venting what they can't say in public. In my personal life, many people have said the words "(x) needs to be hung/shot/guillotined," over the last couple of years. They're at the point of violence, but won't be the ones to start it. I don't think it's presumptuous to say that there's probably a lot of people that feel that way.

So I guess in summation, what I'm asking is: in the modern age of tyranny, what is the final push before the inevitable violence? And...Are we living at the boiling point, or are we living in the hyphonated part of an reign of terror in someone else's text book; you know, those middle years that aren't worth remembering between the starting year and ending year where everyone went along with everything. Or are we finally at the end? Which part of the future children's history book are we?

Why am I posting this question in so many threads? Curiosity, honestly... I'm looking for answers outside my social circle and even outside my region as they tend to give me the same set of answers. The one thing I've always loved about the Internet is the ability to talk to people from around the world and to get their insight on situations, events, or even just their day-to-day life. When my dad showed me his computer in the early 90s, the thing he said that struck me the hardest was, "we can talk to anyone around the world." That idea was like magic to me and the possibilities of what we could learn as not only an individual, but as a society, by merely talking to other people has stuck with me. And when I can't answer a question by my own information and knowledge of a subject, I try to ask anyone else because I assume there are a lot of people in the world that are smarter and more articulate than I am. In short: I'd just like to hear different perspectives on the subject.
 
I feel like this is something you'll never know about until it actually happens. You can only view it in hindsight - although if you're paying attention you wont be caught off guard when it happens.

Whether its the raised gas prices causing the Yellow Vest protests in France (aren't those still ongoing?) or the Đorđe Martinović incident leading to the collapse of Yugoslavia...sometimes its an objectively minor thing that turns into a major event.

Its like playing Jenga. You can tell when you're getting close to the game ending but you never quite know the exact moment the tower is going to collapse.
 
Three missed meals, etc., but anyone in charge of anything important is already aware of that. This is why the United States is both the central hub of every major psyop & usury scheme in existence and the entertainment capitol of the world. So long as people have access to something that's more appealing than fighting and dying, you can avoid most civil conflict.

Ever notice the only people who seem to comprise Soros' fag squadrons Antifa look like drug addicts, literal retards and the homeless? That's the level you need to reach to want to go kill the government.
 
>hey guys I'm sperg posting some fed datamining shit all over the farms. Please give us ideas how we can start the next big glowop.
Here's what would need to happen for the next totally violent terrorist attack to occur:
- All alphabet agencies are dissolved.
- All former/active federal agents simultaneously commit suicide or disappear.
- Government does something bad or something I guess.
Who wants to play Minecraft?
 
If you're just asking these questions now, and on the clear Internet no less, then I'm afraid you're too late. Even if you had been timely in your inquiry you're asking the wrong questions. Try to be less grossly incandescent when the time comes and you might make it.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Haffhart
Maybe that's the answer right there. Maybe everyone is always thinking the same thing, but they're waiting for someone else to fire the--metaphorical--first shot, and after that is when everyone unifies. I think that's honestly why there's an increase in fed-posts on every board and thread I've been in (aside from the standard edgy teens and actual glowniggery). I think there is a contigient of people on the internet that are venting what they can't say in public. In my personal life, many people have said the words "(x) needs to be hung/shot/guillotined," over the last couple of years. They're at the point of violence, but won't be the ones to start it. I don't think it's presumptuous to say that there's probably a lot of people that feel that way.

Pretty much this. It's a collective action problem. Whoever acts first is likely to suffer as a result, as we've seen with the truckers being debanked and shit in Canada. Another issue is what others have alluded to as "bread and circuses." Despite everything, so long as they are still relatively safe and comfortable, normies probably aren't going to do anything. If complying keeps you fat and happy, 90+% of people will just comply.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Basketball Jones
Assuming this question isn't asked in jest: riots and revolutions tend to happen when people can't meet their basic economic needs, or suffer a collective humiliation. Things like: food price inflation, mass unemployment, loss of territory in a war, crushing taxes. There may be ideological component like protest against corruption or police brutality or calls to free political prisoners and so on, but these are the top part of the hierarchy of needs. They do not trigger mass violence in themselves. It usually only happens when people are destitute and have little other option. If people can get by, they will avert their gaze at oppression, keep their heads down.

This is how Arab Spring happened: these dictators were shitty for years, but protest only happened when food prices went way up.

It is more likely to happen when there is a group with strong social / religious / ethnic bonds concentrated in a geographic area, with grievance against an outgroup. These are race riots, religious pogroms, etc.

Exceptions abound, of course. But regarding Canadian trucker episode, I don't think it meets these criteria. What we call "inflation" in 2022 is nothing compared to how bad hyperinflation can get. People can afford food. The vaccine mandate is of course a humiliation, and must be opposed, but is it so viscerally humiliating that people will rebel with violence? I do not think so.
 
Last edited:
I feel like this is something you'll never know about until it actually happens. You can only view it in hindsight - although if you're paying attention you wont be caught off guard when it happens.

Whether its the raised gas prices causing the Yellow Vest protests in France (aren't those still ongoing?) or the Đorđe Martinović incident leading to the collapse of Yugoslavia...sometimes its an objectively minor thing that turns into a major event.

Its like playing Jenga. You can tell when you're getting close to the game ending but you never quite know the exact moment the tower is going to collapse.
Well said. I'd say it mostly depends on the specifics of the particular situation and just as much depends on who we're talking about. For example what set off the russians to trigger a revolution and go soviet might not have pushed the italians or egyptians to do the same in similar circumstances. Cultural attitudes and history count for alot in those kinds of things. and like you said sometimes you never really know what'll set it off. Look how ww1 started and how that shitshow spiraled out of control over one idiot with a pistol, look how it was a minor mutiny on a russian ship that pushed shit over the edge and led to the revolution. For the americans it was taxation without representation, but also notice that while some of the colonies agreed this was justification to resort to violence not all of the colonies did, so now we have the US and canada, despite originally being the same people in the same situation

That said, when it comes down to it, few such violent uprising have ever led to a positive outcome for anyone involved. The USA is about the only example I can think of where it didn't either fail or end badly for the people one way or another. The soviet union, the french revolution, the medieval peasants revolt in england. Look how they ended up backfiring. The thing about being pushed into doing something like this is that people tend to react at the time and never really consider what they intend to to afterwards to correct the original problem

There is also the fact that, as has been pointed out already, few people want to be the one firing the first shot. Even if they would go along with shit going down. Thats one of those situations where you better be damn sure about what you're doing and that others are with you, cause if you're wrong or get stupid about it you're fucked, and everybody watching you to see whether anything might actually happen as a result knows it. Many of the people who might actually support such a thing are either extremist types who are already balls deep with a bunch of crazies hoping for something to go down but never actually being stupid enough to want to be the guy who fires the first shot, or they're the average person who takes the stance of 'i'm fed up but I have way too much to lose by doing something stupid. so if somethings going to happen you better be the one to do it, and make it out there enough for everyone to see and support and then maybe i'm with you if it doesn't look like it'll go bad real quick
 
When they decide they can get away with it. Or when they are offered an acceptable target/scapegoat for their ire. Whichever comes first, really.
Or something that was a last straw who ignite a sparkle like when the Detroit police department raided a "blind pig" which leaded to the 1967 riots or when the jury acquitted the cops who injured Rodney King.
 
Mass surveillance makes it impossible for individuals with extremist desires to collude and organize in any meaningful way. Feds will be monitoring you the second you slip up and you will get found out long before you can do anything substantial. Even Ted and Tim - who we often refer to in the singular - worked in groups and had support. You can't do this anymore. You will be seen.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Basketball Jones
I actually didn’t realize people had replied to this because I didn’t get any notifications about it, so I had assumed it went mostly ignored. Then again I think I posted this during DDOS maintenance so that’s understandable. Thank you to everyone that replied, and I’m sorry I’m only just now seeing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the fall of man
I think there has to be a target for violence, at least at first. There are people in the country that I do not like at all and who I believe probably should receive harsh treatment (politicians), but that's more of a personally held opinion
 
If you're talking about Amerimutts, then never. Us burgers are too comfortable and docile in general to even attempt a violent uprising.
Most people know that any form of violent resistance will be met with, at best, dumb cops in riot gear and mace, or at worst with troops ordered to open fire at will. Sure you have some hicks and LOLbertarians who "are ready for anything", but when it comes for that actual push they run.
We have too many distractions and things to lose to actually attempt a violent revolution, and ironically if the cabal try their "Own nothing and be happy" bullshit it might snap several people into taking action.
TLDR; never cause burgers are lazy.

nice try glowie
 
Back