The SJWs will Enforce Freedom...

I've read a good bit of Nietzsche, but don't quite remember that bit. I might have to read that again if you remember where it's from.

My theory about original sin, though I'm an atheist, is that evil is exploit cruelty, usually in the form of coercion, but sometimes otherwise, and to conspire to continue to do so further, or rather that the foundational basis for evil is something like that. I think that it begins as psychological manipulation, progresses into psychological warfare, and then becomes authoritarianism. In a way, it's just psychological, or, rather, as I see, pathological, but there is also that society, as it stands now, rewards such a way of going about things to a certain extent, though, perhaps, and thankfully, only implicitly.


Well, I mean, I do realize that is sounds pretty absurd, but as more or less of even the libertarian Left's revolutionary praxis involves anything from just sort of strategically killing as few of them as possible to just kind of killing whoever however and for whatever reason, I do think that it is a better solution that what most people come up with. It is only given a nonviolent revolution. Otherwise, what leads people to be authoritarian should just be eliminated, which is probably the best way to go about things, anyways.

@thewonder It's from thus spake zarathustra. Talking about his fantasy "ubermensch".
I agree with most of your psychological analysis of cruelty. I would add that it is explicit in the elite echelons of politics. Every natural politician has that innate cruelty
and this is one virtue all Authoritarians live by. And they are praised by the populace as being "great leaders"...
The folly of politics!

The SJWs will Enforce Freedom... — Asif

Like I said, that solution is only given a revolutionary scenario, though contemporary prisons ought to be reformed into being something like, anyways, in so far that they should even exist. If there's a revolution than there's going to be a counter-revolution and what can be done about the counter-revolution is to either kill them or put them in jail. Since killing them is fraught with ethical and strategic quandries, the only solution is to put them in jail. Rather than place them in prison as we have come to understand them today, I have chosen to conceptualize Communities in Isolation, which are technically internment camps, though they wouldn't have to work, and I should hope that such notions don't throw a rose-colored shade upon the history of internment camps, but are intended to isolate the minimal amount of people for the minimal amount of time in the best of possible conditions. Like I said, though, it's probably best not to conceptualize any sort of ideal society along such lines.

Realistically speaking, there's probably some sort of way, with a bit of imagination, to avoid even that, and, so, I may retract such statements at a later date.

I just reread Thus Sparch Zarathustra not too long ago. I'll have to leaf through it to find the quote.

There is still a kind of duplicitous cutthroat aspect to Politics, as well as the reverence for historical "great men", but I hope that those sort of things are on their way out. As contemporary Politics stand, I do consider for myself to be a-political, as I just don't think that they're all that great, but, I don't think that Politics, referring to what Wikipedia defines as "is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status", is necessarily flawed somehow, and hope that our circumstances will improve. There are all kinds of problems, but the biggest issue, to me, seems to be an avarice as it concerns power.

@thewonder The problem with all this "revolutionary" thinking is that you need a huge amount of resources and public support to mount it. Ie,it has to be funded and planned by the mega rich who got rich by precisely being
ruthlessly authoritarian! In other words just a changing of the vanguard. And in modern democracies the elite have know that revolutions are untenable given modern popular culture and are not good for business or stability.
You cannot overcome political coercion with more political coercion. Politics is intrinsically about an elite coercing a majority as long as the majority get enough bread circuses and ego esteem and nationalist pride.
Freedom comes from the Individual Outside the govt perusal.

Well, I mean, like, the Anarchist movement isn't really funded by George Soros. There could be such a movement without that kind of funding. I'm only so into nonviolent revolution anyways, though. Like I said, I became more or less a-political.

@thewonder I hear you! I'm Transpolitical! I'm only interested in Free Speech really. I trust groups like I trust
foxes. Revolution! How many lies have been told in the name of this concept!
Marx was really an evil man.

Eh, I have some, but not too many qualms with Marx. I think in the Soviet Union, it was pretty clear that the most culpable party was Josef Stalin. Vladimir Lenin and even Leon Trotsky were only so much less culpable, though. The issue with Marxism is, I think, how it has been put into effect, à la more or less Marxism-Leninism and Maoism, and not necessarily Marx himself. I don't blame Friedrich Nietzsche for the Third Reich, and, so, why should I blame Karl Marx for the abuse of the Communist project?

Being said, though, seeing that even my own minimally coercive post-revolutionary strategy somewhat absurdly seems to necessitate "Communities in Isolation", revolution, even nonviolent revolution, is probably not all that its cracked up to be. You could probably just get whomever out of power through peaceful protest however and just set up whatever so that they couldn't be able to overturn the revolution or whatever, but, you'd, then, have to banish them from the political sphere, which is also quite nebulous. When all of Politics needs to be so radically reformed that it ceases to exist as such, though, I'm not entirely sure as to what kind of ideal strategy could be put forth other than nonviolent revolution.

It seems like the best thing to do, politically, is to just create your own communities and try to change things however, though that would tend to rely more upon radical reform than revolution, but, I do think could still be leveled from an Anarchist, specifically Anarcho-Pacifist in my case, though, like I said, I did leave the Anarchist movement in protest of its general proclivities towards crypto-Fascism and political violence and become decidedly a-political, praxis. The community events and protest are really what to do and to engage in adventurist terrorism, believe that you can incite an effective global revolution, or that you are, in point of fact, the contemporary Mahatma Gandhi is not. We do live in a world with over seven billion people and do have effect upon them and it, but, any act that is not somehow of the final project of all of humanity isn't futile on account of not having actually created the best of all possible worlds. I've found that people tend to get swept up into things like "creating history". You should learn to mediate historical events so that you can retain agency with their occurrence, but, there's something that's kind of authoritarian to believing that you should cultivate a cult of personality as some sort of heroic renegade whose acts are somehow supposed to bring about some sort of new way of living. It's kind of like claiming to be a holy person.

I don't know. People should just be open-minded and not take themselves too seriously. The best that almost anyone can do is just simply to live and treat others well, anyways. I'm happy with having left Politics behind me, but do hope for the best for the future for everyone else. It's best to remain as optimistic as you can, I think. Anyways, I am going to leave now, as I have kind of a compulsive habit of using the internet and too many things to do now. I'll see you whenever!

Anti-authoritarianism would destroy all concepts of "politics", and "government". Without authority no government, or society can be built. Authority is must to create society where we want to have "rights", without authority, everyone would have different conception of "rights", that lead to chaos and war.

Only thing that held societies together, is their authority, like politicians, army, police etc.

Otherwise, what leads people to be authoritarian should just be eliminated — thewonder

Let's call it "The Final Solution". Do you not notice how you have become your enemy?

Is not an authoritarian one who has a clear idea of how things ought to be and seeks to impose it on the others whether they like it or not? An anti authoritarian on the other hand, has a clear idea of how things should be...

...but only seeks to impose it on others that don't like it.

Anti-authoritarianism would destroy all concepts of "politics", and "government". Without authority no government, or society can be built. Authority is must to create society where we want to have "rights", without authority, everyone would have different conception of "rights", that lead to chaos and war.

Only thing that held societies together, is their authority, like politicians, army, police etc.

I'm not sure we can equivocate anti-authoritarianism with anti-authority because an authority is capable of defending rather than limiting individual freedoms. For instance I think it necessary that any free population organize a force to protect and defend themselves from attacks on their rights and property. If we are so anti-authority that we can't even create such a force to defend ourselves from threats to our freedoms, we are subject to Popper's paradox of tolerance.

I meant that the incentives towards authoritarian behavior should be removed and not that authoritarians should be systematically eliminated. The structure of society as such should altered so that it doesn't reward authoritarian behavior.

Once, after the revolution, you banish them from the political sphere, you effectively end up having to imprison them somehow when they attempt to violently overthrow whatever has to come to take their place. Technically speaking, that would be an internment camp. Rather than create a 'soft'-concentration camp for authoritarians, I was suggesting that a rehabilitative facility that people would only ever end up in for so long would be a better option.

All of this is given a hypothetical scenario wherein a nonviolent revolution has been effectively carried out. Once a government or governments are ousted, whatever new way of going about whatever there is will take their place. They can participate within that. In so far that they are disruptive, they may have to not be let to do so. In so far that they, then, decide to violently, as they will be let to protest otherwise, overthrow the new way of going about things, I can't really see another resolution to that crisis other than to place them in something like a Community in Isolation. You could protest them doing that and that may work, but they may just slaughter people en masse. As it is still conditional upon an effective nonviolent revolution for the security forces to decide not to fire upon a civilian populace, the security forces can, then, employ the kind of "soft-policing powers" that that guy from Aufheben received all of that flak for, somewhat justifiably, though I can see that that is useful in this regard, to arrest them without situations escalating to the point where there is an exchange of fire. There's probably bound to be a few cases, but, when you could probably greatly improve the livelihood of everyone on the planet on Earth by dramatically decreasing the number of people who are somehow imprisoned and dramatically increasing the livelihood of those who are, as well as the length of their sentences, with marginal casualties, I don't think that nonviolent revolution should be entirely ruled out because it somehow isn't quite anti-authoritarian enough or can not entirely do away with the State or whatever from the immediate outset. I don't know if you've ever encountered a person such as those who I am referring to, but, though I have qualms with that this is kind the best that I can come up with, as they are vile, debased, and have an excessive and ruthless avarice for power, that I am suggesting that they should be placed in something like a Community of Isolation for two to eight years is really more than kind. Most people just say that you should kill them en masse. As it is part and parcel to the idea that the Communities in Isolation will be nice enough for them to be willing to give each other up, I don't foresee too much danger in that people won't take what is a sincere attempt to, given an effective nonviolent revolution, enforce as minimal of repression as humanly possible seriously enough.

In so far that there is not a nonviolent revolution, what systemically allows for authoritarian behavior, provisions, laws, profit incentives, etc. etc., and what rewards it should be countered so that it can be abolished. As nonviolent revolution is rather grandiose, and does still pose an Ethical quandary, that sort of thing is probably primarily what people should be up to anyways.

Anyways, I am leaving, and, so, I'll just have to leave everyone with that, I guess. As I said before, it's probably best not to think of any ideal society upon such lines and to avoid them if, at all, possible. I'll see you all when or if ever, though. Until then!

Why do politicians tell lies and make promises they know they cannot keep? Why do politicians focus on throwing mud at their competition instead of presenting voters with solid, future-proof policies?

They do these things because it is what gets them votes. If it gets them votes it means it is what the voters want to hear and see. Thereby the behavior of politicians is directly influenced by the voters' preferences, in accordance with the quote "Every country gets the government it deserves." — Tzeentch

It only gets them votes from their party members. No one tries to cross party lines any more. It seems to me that most independents are the ones that are tired of politics as usual while the Dems and Reps keep voting for the status quo. It is they that have established an "us vs. them" mentality, as if the only solutions can only by provided by one party and any solutions provided by the other shouldn't be supported because it is from the other party. And then there are those potential voters that don't vote for anyone. I believe that the resentment against politics as usual is growing and evident in the growing number of independents.

No one tries to cross party lines any more. — Harry Hindu

And whose fault is that? Surely this can be attributed to the voters as much as the politicians.

Once, after the revolution, you banish them from the political sphere, — thewonder

Do your revolutionary history. It's not just a theory of mine; you the revolutionary is just the sort of person that gets banished from the political sphere. You cannot help yourself, your every proposal is a litany of authoritarian language - impose, eliminate, banish, incarcerate.

The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House — Audre Lorde

And whose fault is that? — Tzeentch

The ones that benefit from you voting for them and not the other guy. It is in the politicians best interest to get you to think that only one party or candidate is righteous and the other evil. If not to vote for them then vote against the other candidate, either way they get your vote because most people maintain the two party status quo.

This plays into what I was saying about the voters being barraged by misinformation perpetuates more ignorance by the media.

It is in the politicians best interest to get you to think that only one party or candidate is righteous and the other evil. — Harry Hindu

This plays into what I was saying about the voters being barraged by misinformation perpetuates more ignorance by the media. — Harry Hindu

Every person has a responsibility in this regard, for thinking for themselves and being critical of what they are told.

This portrayal of voters as victims of misinformation is something I dislike, because this seems to treat people as children who do not know any better, rather than independent agents. Many voters may be ignorant, but I consider it within their capability and responsibility to make it not so.

As such, the misleader and the misled are both part of this problem.

This portrayal of voters as victims of misinformation is something I dislike, because this seems to treat people as children who do not know any better, rather than independent agents. — Tzeentch

It depends on you knowing that you're misinformed. It also puts the burden on voters to find the truth rather than the burden be on the politicians to tell the truth. Those with the power should be held to higher standard.

Why do politicians tell lies and make promises they know they cannot keep? — Tzeentch

So you're telling me that voters vote for people that they know lie?

It depends on you knowing that you're misinformed. It also puts the burden on voters to find the truth rather than the burden be on the politicians to tell the truth. — Harry Hindu

Not quite. I regard the burden as shared.

Those with the power should be held to higher standard. — Harry Hindu

Perhaps. Though, I find it difficult to imagine why the bar should be lowered for those who are not in power.

So you're telling me that voters vote for people that they know lie? — Harry Hindu

No. Like I said, many are probably quite ignorant. Yet, it is my view that those who are ignorant have both the capability, the means and the responsibility to make it not so, or at the very least recognize their own ignorance!

Perhaps. Though, I find it difficult to imagine why the bar should be lowered for those who are not in power. — Tzeentch

Raising the bar for those that weild the power isn't necessarily lowering it for others. Those without power don't have any responsibility in weilding what they don't have.

Yet, in a democracy, the voters do have power.

If you think that your voting power is equal to the power of just one politician, who also has the power to vote and then some, then you are delusional.

Well, I don't think I ever mentioned that being case?

I like that Lorde quote, but you're not actually, like, reading what I'm saying.

I'm well aware of the history of the ban. Again, though, that's just what that is. Let's say that there's a nonviolent revolution and a participatory democracy is created. When a person who had a different status of power before and they, then, attempt to disrupt the new political process and you make it so that they can't participate in the new political process for that reason, you do effectively banish them. I would impose a ban as per Roman law or attempt to reduce the status of the person to bare life as per the Third Reich or something, but, it is probably the case that, given an effective revolution, there are people who you will have to make it so that they can't participate within the new political process. Somehow, Giorgio Agemben seems to think that forms-of-life resolve this conundrum, but, as his writing style is so arcane, I still don't understand how that is.

The point that I'm really trying to get at is is that even nonviolent revolution poses kind of a lot of Ethical quandaries that kind of lot of people don't really take into consideration. I don't really have the resolution for them. I'm just kind of tossing ideas out there. I'm not advocating some sort of ostensibly anti-authoritarian dictatorship of the proletariat following a revolution; I'm just trying to minimize the requisite repression given such a scenario. It's difficult to explain as to just what that is as the existent security apparatus is of a punitive framework. For instance, by "soft-policing powers", I don't really mean to imply what that actually refers to, but just of some sort of maximal minimization of escalation and harm. You can immediately establish some sort of ideal society, such as an informal set of asystemic Liberal democratic, proceeding from human rights law or whatever, governing assemblages and an Anarchist communes, the "Commune of communes" or what is veritable of the end goals of Communism, or whatever other kind of societies, communities, groups, w/e, as a kind of plurality of of political or even a-political communities predicated upon something like free association given a participatory democratic what I identify as "Anarchist", though some might claim is a "Libertarian Communist" project wherein participation is not compulsory, but is open to all, that people should like to create those things aside, but it doesn't seem like you can actually entirely do away with any form of repression whatsoever from the immediate outset. I'm not trying to make a crypto-authoritarian justification of heavy handed repression; I'm just trying to figure out as to how it is that the requisite repression can be minimized. Rehabilitative justice and a somewhat radically reconceptualized strategy concerning the security apparatus, wherein, by way of what is kind of a transitional program, though, again, that's another misleading term, such strategies would only be temporal and designed to abolish themselves eventually, which is not suggest that you shouldn't immediately begin to dismantle the security apparatus, but, as I am loathe to admit, there are, perhaps, aspects of it, such as those which the United Nations, with a certain degree of both veracity and pretense, claims to enforce, that may still need to be put into effect. I am an Anarchist, or, at least, was, but, if you want for something like human rights law to be effective, then, you do have to expect that there will be people who will ensure that it is.

All of this is pure conjecture, anyways, as it is probably unlikely that an effective nonviolent revolution will occur.

Apologies for the double-post, but, to explicate further:

Trigger Warning: Brief mention of domestic violence.

Let's say that there is a coalition of anti-authoritarians who effectively wage a nonviolent revolution. It'd probably be more or less comprised of, exclusively, for the sake of brevity, in terms of only political inclinations in regards attitudes towards liberty and economics, as I, of course, wouldn't exclude people concerned with racial justice, LGBTQ+ activists, environmentalists, etc. etc., but don't want for this list to be more than a paragraph long, Libertarian Communists, certain left-wing Communists, some Communization theorists, libertarian socialists, some Autonomists, Anarchists, some democratic socialists, the peace movement, some left-wing Liberals, certain Libertarians, Centrists who are ultimately sympathetic to the libertarian Left, and a set of other theoretical political philosophies that can effectively be inclined towards anti-authoritarianism. As, in order to effectively wage a nonviolent revolution, such a coalition will have needed to have gained mass support, the new political process will, then, have a majority comprised of people who are necessarily inclined towards libertarianism and, in this example, and I would argue that it does follow, egalitarianism. If you are an Individualist Anarchist, which I am not not necessarily, you would probably create a different coalition, but, for the sake of argument, permit me an example. People who were of, for lack of a better term, more authoritative political philosophies, such as less radical Liberalism, Social Democracy, less radical Centrism, or other forms of Libertarianism, would probably want to participate within the political process created by the anti-authoritarian coalition and would form a significant minority, again, for lack of a better term, pragmatic wing. I'm inventing statistics, here, at random, but, let's say that sixty percent of the populace or whatever is aligned with the anti-authoritarian coalition and twenty percent of the populace forms the pragmatic wing. Eighty percent of the populace now agrees with the new political process. That twenty percent of the populace is in opposition to the new political process as such does present a significant threat to it, but does not warrant that they can be excluded from it, as, over time, most of them can be assimilated within the pragmatic wing or may even come around to any of the anti-authoritarian political philosophies that they were in opposition to. The problem is not necessarily that there will be people who disagree with the new political process, but just that, at least, from the outset, there are bound to be people who are either "reactionary", meaning that they are of an intransigent, for lack of better term, recalcitrance wherein they are just simply opposed to the new political process without really taking anything into consideration whatsoever, or "extreme", meaning that they are willing to attempt to overturn the new political process by whatever means that they can. Let's say that only ten percent of the opposition is either reactionary or extreme, with only five percent of it being extreme. It is a test of the validity of the new political process to cope with that there will be a reactionary element. That will have to be countered within the political process. In so far that that is effective, the reactionary element will diminish. Assuming that it does, in our somewhat idealized hypothetical scenario, we have now gotten ninety-five percent of the populace to more or less agree with the new political process. Again, as this is a hypothetical situation wherein something like the network-power of the Central Intelligence Agency has been dissolved through a nonviolent revolution, I am just inventing statistics at random. How does the new political process cope with the remaining five percent? It is likely that, given such a scenario, there will be a set of political factions, exo-Fascists, various Fascists and Neo-Fascists, various Third Positionists, authoritarian Neo-Conservatives, duplicitous Neo-Liberals, various Monarchists and other people who want some sort of return to the aristocracy, certain religious fundamentalists, as well as, though it is unlikely that these two sets of people will ally themselves with one another, certain Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, people who ascribe to Mao Zedong Thought, certain Populists, though, as I did frame this as being a political movement that is more or less of the libertarian Left, it is likely that people of more authoritarian left-wing political philosophies will, at least, attempt to come around to the new political process, which is not to say that they don't pose a predicament in their own right, but, just to suggest that it will differ from that of the either reactionary or extreme Right, as well as, though they are probably likely to find themselves with whatever "strange bedfellows", people who ascribe to a kind of authoritarian Centrism, who, especially after having been removed from power, are likely to attempt to disrupt the new political process by any means necessary. In so far that they are effective in doing so and in violation of whatever substantial rights, so to speak, or whatever there are to ensure that the new political process is genuine, such as the freedom from coercion or something like free association, they may actually need to be removed from the political process. It does seem entirely absurd to let someone read passages from Mein Kampf for hours on end and openly advocate for the systemic elimination of Jews in the name of inclusion, given that there is something like a participatory democratic process. I don't think that a person needs to be dragged out into the street and shot because of that they had, in anger, called someone a "k**e", but there are spheres of discourse to where the freedom of speech just doesn't really extend. Let's say that two percent of the opposition extremists do have to be prevented from participating in the new political process. The remaining three percent could, perhaps, be entertained, so to speak, so long that their abuse of the new political process does not become so consuming that all that anyone any longer does is to attempt to talk them out of their authoritarian ethos. Now that we have, and I do use such language so as not to lie about what this is, though I clearly don't think that such Politics should be carried out as they have historically, banned two percent of the populace from participating within the new political process, what are we to do about how it is that they may retaliate for having been banned? Let's say that one percent of them may engage in some sort of protest or another that, perhaps, should be taken into some sort of consideration, but will probably just more or less be the sort of thing that is just sort of tolerated and can be considered to be akin to certain social phenomenons, such as, though I would not malign such an either spiritual or religious ethos entirely, someone who is a Satanist, but kind of takes the potentially evil aspect of Satanism a little too far. On some level, a young person who insists upon wearing an all-black trench coat to high school every day doesn't really have the right to freely express themselves as such, as they are kind of exploiting the cult aspect of their way of presenting themselves as an implicit threat, but if an Anarchist society is incapable of coping with something that could be akin to that some people just got a little too far into Black Metal, then I don't think that the political philosophy can be meaningfully invoked whatsoever. That there would be such people is, again, another test to the validity of the new political process. Let us, again, assume that it passes. We are now left with the one percent of reactionary opposition extremists who are likely to engage in political terrorism. Even though this set of political factions, left totally unchecked, is only likely to be able to garnish the support of ten percent of the populace, and, therefore, only provide so significant of a threat to the new political process, it does seem evident to me that that they will attempt to engage in political terrorism by way of some sort of counter-revolution should be prevented. There are strategies, à la the First Earth Battalion or the protest that sought to levitate the Pentagon, that could, perhaps, be tried, but, what realistically seems apt is that whatever it is that was veritable of the security apparatus should be repurposed, radically conceptualized, and put into effect. As I support the full decriminalization and legalization of all narcotics, though along with some sort of way to ensure their responsible use, the only criminal plights that I can foresee becoming a problem relate to coercion. As people would no longer be living under a hyper-competitive form of capitalism, I would project that, though, again, there would be some cases, coercion that isn't somehow politically motivated would dramatically decrease, leaving only politically motivated coercion, which, to an extreme degree constitutes political terrorism, as the only primary criminal plight. With that being said, however, I, even in this hypothetical, am only one actor and can not decide for the entire coalition as to how a nonviolent revolution should be carried out or what should be set into motion after the fact, though, given that we have hypothesized a genuinely anti-authoritarian nonviolent revolution, would insist that all narcotics should, at least, be decriminalized. To return to my argument, however, when dealing with reactionary opposition extremist political terrorists, you can either kill or imprison them. I am suggesting that you should imprison them. Rather than imprison within the punitive criminal justice system that exists now, I am suggesting that a rehabilitative justice system should be created. At a random conjecture, I would suggest that such people could get out of a Community in Isolation on good behavior in six months and that, regardless as to what they do while there, there should be a cap on sentences of fifteen years. As there are bound to be a lot of Psychologists who are fascinated by the problem of evil, I don't think that it would be too difficult to staff such a facility with good people who were sincerely devoted to a rehabilitative justice project. As, eventually, society should develop so that what originates such behavior would no longer occur, they would only be temporary. As I do also think that most of the security apparatus, as there is only so much of it that is veritable, should be immediately dismantled, I am not advocating some sort of quasi-totalitarian, but, ostensibly anti-authoritarian, transitional program. I am positing that the problem of what more or less will probably almost exclusively be Fascist terrorism will still exist, even given that there has been an effective nonviolent revolution and some sort of, probably participatory democratic, political process that would not be compulsory, but would be open to all, to have taken the place of the only so veritably Liberal democratic representative democracy that exists now. In order to cope with that, what I am suggesting is that, though largely diminished, some of the security apparatus can be repurposed sort of along the lines of what the United Nations, at least, purports itself to do. Given that there is an effective revolution, people will have to cope with that a counter-revolution will be attempted to be waged. What I am suggesting is that, in order to cope with that, a temporal, radically reconceptualized, and diminished security apparatus should, predicated upon things like deescalation, the minimization of harm, and the minimal requisite repression, be put into effect. It does seem like people will still, for a period of time, need to be protected from, what, again, will probably more or less exclusively be Fascist terrorism, and for human rights to be substantially upheld, even given an effective nonviolent revolution. As that such things are even necessary does indicate that such a strategy is not entirely ideal, I am willing to accept criticism in this regard, but, I do think that it would be somewhat delusional to assume that people who are prone to things like Fascist terrorism will be so taken by a revolutionary political process, though I do hope that some of them will, that they will just simply no longer want to engage in it.

Of Fascists and the like, I will say that you can, with a bit of kindness, sympathy, and willingness to entertain ideas that are totally outside of any form of "civility", get them to unbecome as such entirely so as to fully uphold the ideal of abolition, which I am sympathetic towards, though would also prefer to consider outside of this certain absurdity, but that that takes so much time that, to me, it seems entirely absurd to suggest that people should spend years of their life encountering each and every individual Fascist, or other nefarious person, and that they should, rather, either attempt to carry out an effective nonviolent revolution or to abolish what subjugates people to authoritarianism, which is to say that, though I am of the opinion that a person should just merely level a political debate from their own perspective, in so far that an appeal is made, in a person's case who is similar to mine, it should only ever be made so far out of a person's perspective to their most distant ally, being someone like a Centrist who is ultimately sympathetic towards the libertarian Left. That a person becomes a Fascist is actually rather sad, as, in most cases, they have become subject to what is either usually "Neo-Fascist", though, as I am of the opinion that Fascism just merely survived following the Second World War and did not really experience a revival beginning, perhaps, with the Greek junta in 1967, and, so, don't have too many qualms with just kind blanketly essentializing the entire far-Right with the charge of "Fascism", or what I refer to as "exo-Fascist", basically a form of what I suspect to usually be, though it can be otherwise, Intelligence entrapment, conscription. While there are elements of abolition that are to the benefit of even the far-Right, to attempt to substantiate the ethos as such hazards consuming it within Fascist pathology. Given that to entirely uphold the ideal of abolition requires that people engage in a nebulous project that involves an encounter with the far-Right, as well as that it does not adequately address the immediate concerns of what to do about existent Fascist terrorism, as well as a few other things, such as cases of domestic violence, what I am just simply telling you is that, at this given point in time, that ideal can not practically be upheld as such, which is to say that, in spite of that people should express solidarity with things like the prison abolition movement, there are aspects of the security apparatus that both do need to remain in effect and will, though, again, radically reconceptualized, still, even given the best of all revolutionary scenarios.

The short of which, though I will elaborate further, is that there are four strategies that can be employed in order to deal with either actual or would-be Fascist terrorists, which is just more or less every Fascist. You can engage them in a psychological encounter, which may be effective if you are a genius, extraordinarily well versed in Psychology, and about as good of an actor as John McEnery in Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet, but for everyone else is likely to be, at best, dismissed as "Communist mind control". You can talk to them for an extensive period of time, which is effective, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend as Fascists are likely to lie about you engaging them in conversation as a form of entrapment. You can, otherwise, either kill or imprison them. Aside from that it doesn't seem too ethical to kill them, there is that they have a number of strategic advantages within a civil war, as well as that, unlike everyone else, they are not likely to engage in combat by any ethical code of conduct, and have some of both the official and unofficial sanction of certain parties within the Intelligence community. With all of that in mind, I can only recommend that they be imprisoned. Even though the criminal justice system is kind of terrible, regardless as to how anyone feels about abolition, if you suspect that a person is in danger of carrying out an act of Fascist terrorism, it would probably, at best, be negligent of you not to inform some sort of law enforcement. Given that there is an effective revolution, I would suggest that, rather than place Fascist terrorists within a punitive criminal justice system like what exists now, in so far that they are engaged in terrorism, they should be placed in a rehabilitative justice system. All of this is indicative of that the security apparatus can not be entirely dismantled as of right now or even after an effective nonviolent revolution. You could always just execute them all by firing squad, but what I am suggesting is that it would be better to reconceptualize what is veritable of the security apparatus so as to effect the minimal requisite repression necessary to cope with that such parties will still be active.

TL;DR entirely: Fascist terrorism is how only so much of the security apparatus can be dismantled and rehabilitative justice is what to replace it with.

That is a rather lengthy explication. As I have previously said, it is probably best not to consider utopia along the lines of how it is that people can deal with its more extreme detractors. In so far that such a revolution does not occur, as, though I am not opposed to that happening, it does seem a bit unlikely that such an event will spontaneously happen, I am suggesting that people should merely create and engage in the best communities that they can and to do what they can to abolish what subjugates people to authoritarianism, all of which, I do think, is, in good faith, in keeping with an anti-authoritarian ethos.

Anyways, I am leaving, and, so, I will have to just leave you with that. Thanks for reading all of that if you did. I hope that all is well and goes well and will see or hear from you when or if ever. 'Til then!