I don't agree with this article, but I still think it was well-written and thought out.

My concern is that the low-information voting public, being fed a corporate media narrative, won't be able to recognize, nor appreciate, a distinction between "targeted property destruction" and "violence". As a result, property destruction may turn off more people than it wakes up, and feed into the corporate narrative that dissidents are violent people who need to be suppressed.

I don't think that waking people up is more important than defining the future, but rather that they are inextricably linked. I think that whatever is done now in the name of social change will become part of the tactics of any system that replaces the one we already have, should that come to pass in the near future.

Many thanks to Audrey Brown for sharing this.

Shared publicly