A lot of being a leftist means spelling out just how grotesque and violent libs are to their faces because they can’t connect the dots by themselves. There are no constellations to these people, only twinkling lights.

Engels concept of social murder remains one of the most underutilized terms on the left despite its rhetorical potency.

I’ve said it elsewhere a few times, but this is a real problem a lot of liberals have, separating civility of language from civility of action, and it’s part of why they despise people like Trump so much.

Yes, they may desire the same goals, but from a politician they expect a certain veil of plausible deniability, like what Obama provided; delivering laws and actions about deporting people and blowing up others in dull, ‘professional’ terms, rather then being so crass and bombastic about it.

They venerate this sanctity of civil speech above all else, but they’ll never really admit to it. This worship of it I think is partly why you see so many bazinga brains being needlessly verbose.

the empire is a machine of blood, destruction, and death. The libs may be too naive to recognize it, but leftists cannot afford such luxury

“THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”

Death to America means hunting down and mercing every current American citizen, not dismantling the structures that enforce American hegemony like the CIA or US Military (or internally, like the DEA, FBI, or border force)

I’m over here saying we need less violence, but the violence we have has to be surgical and overwhelming.

One of the easiest ways to counter this rhetoric is to point out that the violence is never gone in whatever state system exists. Any threat, from a historical pov, is met with real violence and the liberal idea of truly free speech only exists in a state where there exists little to no current threat to the underlying power structure.

For conservatives (especially the kind that believe that socialist/etc will concentrate too much power in the state, whi h will result in state violence) you need only dig down a bit to get them to admit that they believe that violence is appropriate so long as it targets the right people. At which point you can let them know you don’t give a shit about their opinions on it at all

And, it’s like, what. Joe Pooptickler in the comments can tell me that I should be institutionalized, thrown out of a helicopter, or institutionalized then thrown out of a helicopter and suddenly i’m the bad one for wanting to sling some shit back at them?

Mafalda pfp

You see, you have to kill more people to make the divine line go up every day!

Reads like a Carlin bit

i want to treat the US ruling class exactly like they treat the rulers of other nations

i have no patience for people talking about violent rhetoric on the left

What violent left rhetoric is she’s even talking about?

Refuses to elaborate further.
Leaves.

And anyway, what leftist response to fascism does she have patience for?

Wait, is she even talking about the left at all, or about liberals?

Babs Johnson Thought becomes the bipartisan consensus

Babs Johnson Thought becomes the bipartisan consensus