As I've said before, I do not believe the Cathedral has the ability to stop low level anti-parallel institutional development. The anti-Left continues to have predominantly hard power, rather than soft. Coming from a former occupier of a country, soft power without hard power backing you up is a weak position that will get you killed once someone figures it out.
As time goes on, people will continue defy and engage in mild, but unapologetic civil disobedience or simple anti-establishment disruption. Each strike further demonstrates the weakness of the establishment to project it's power, while the anti-establishment forces learn how to press their advantages.
There is no question in my mind that violence will inevitably erupt considering the hard-power differences, and the need for violence as a force multiplier to be applied as the establishment flails around ever more ineffectively.
The reason they are scrambling to push rhetoric about counter-insurgency is because the anti-establishment's revolutionary rhetoric is going to slowly start turning into genuine insurgent actions, and there's very little they can do about it without conceding power. One of the primary lessons in Iraq about counter-insurgency was about giving up power and influence to local bodies that were capable of managing their own affairs, but were prepared to relent to your authority over one issue: terrorist violence.
This is why violence from the anti-establishment needs to be dissuaded. The establishment needs violence in order to help legitimize themselves as 'the only people that can protect you'. What everyone else needs to do is poison that protectionism.
This sounds reasonable in theory.
I just don't see the Cathedral letting this happen on any meaningful scale.
I think what they will do this year will make 2020 look like a good year.
Before you say it, I admit that I am already pretty blackpilled by this point.
As I've said before, I do not believe the Cathedral has the ability to stop low level anti-parallel institutional development. The anti-Left continues to have predominantly hard power, rather than soft. Coming from a former occupier of a country, soft power without hard power backing you up is a weak position that will get you killed once someone figures it out.
As time goes on, people will continue defy and engage in mild, but unapologetic civil disobedience or simple anti-establishment disruption. Each strike further demonstrates the weakness of the establishment to project it's power, while the anti-establishment forces learn how to press their advantages.
There is no question in my mind that violence will inevitably erupt considering the hard-power differences, and the need for violence as a force multiplier to be applied as the establishment flails around ever more ineffectively.
The reason they are scrambling to push rhetoric about counter-insurgency is because the anti-establishment's revolutionary rhetoric is going to slowly start turning into genuine insurgent actions, and there's very little they can do about it without conceding power. One of the primary lessons in Iraq about counter-insurgency was about giving up power and influence to local bodies that were capable of managing their own affairs, but were prepared to relent to your authority over one issue: terrorist violence.
This is why violence from the anti-establishment needs to be dissuaded. The establishment needs violence in order to help legitimize themselves as 'the only people that can protect you'. What everyone else needs to do is poison that protectionism.