Just a head’s up. Rule 1 and 2 will be used against you. Apparently all the other, ACTUALLY violent, and ACTUALLY racist, shit, is fine, but not that.
So “thanks”, Dom. Being exactly the type of janny we thought you were. 👎
Such fucking bullshit, and you know it.
Why can the police openly plan and use violence, but we get removed for even suggesting a response to the brutality? Fuck it, burn the shit down, everything and everyone responsible for this madness in Australia.
Because apparently the people who "run" this place, or at least one of them, is bizarrely scarred for his own hide, here...
It's ok, Dom (and AoV). Let them come for me. I don't give a shit.
No one else, here, not one of you, is going to pay for the things I, or others, have posted, so STOP FUCKING WORRYING ABOUT IT...!!
But also, isn't it funny how these "internet communities" always, always devolve like this..?
I suppose we should be glad it lasted this long...
But yeah, as I was gonna say elsewhere, "Can't have the normies getting any ideas, right??" :-(
The state believes it deserves to hold a monopoly on violence. This alone explains many things.
The state is a monopoly on violence. That is how it comes into being, its only source of authority, and how it interacts with other states and those in the territory in which it holds that monopoly.
Contrast that with a nation, which is a group of people with a unifying factor, or combine them to get a nation-state, which is as close to moral legitimacy as a state can achieve.
I'm unfamiliar with the semantics of nation and state, apparently.
To approach from another angle, the state believes that it is legitimate even when it is not. This ideally shouldn't become an issue, but a rift between state and citizen should ideally never occur to such a degree as we hear about in aus-land.
So when I imply that the state should not be granted a monopoly on violence, I'm suggesting that it is not legitimate or worthy of authority.
Though I'm not really comfortable with this definition. What would you call a governing structure that does not hold a monopoly on violence? One where they merely hold most of the violence resources without trying to suppress the ability for violence to exist outside of their grasp.
You can't have governance without violence. You can have most of the functions we presently permit the state to handle with aggression by consent instead, but then it is not governance... more like arbitration.
It's time to show them they don't and who really is the boss. Burn it down and smash their helmets. Enough is enough.
If you're in aus-land, I can't rightly dissuade you from that. Just don't forget to make plans for handling the power vacuum.
...finally... time to start the Mad Max timeline