Federal law enforcement agents have arrested a Florida Man and charged him with trying to organize an armed response to pro-President Donald Trump protesters expected at the state Capitol on Sunday.
The analysis of militant individual "insurrectionism" or what you call adventurism is one that doesn't and can't happen alone in front of a screen. It has to be done in a collective and while some collectives did - for wrong material analysis e.g. the Red Army Faction - decide to try to start a prolonged people's struggle the situations in the imperial core for it are seldom there - and the options for individual acts of violence can't be used to change a collective and systemic problem. That said assassinations and their attempts of Fascist leaders like Franco's successor and Hitler and his leading elements are to be applauded.
However in situations where there is no organized resistance and alliance from outside your country e.g. second world war, there is little to be gained from them.
That's more or less the moral/strategic logic I frame terrorism around. It's purely conditional and our window for it being effective is much smaller than the right's. In contexts like the IRA or RAF or 17N, they were countries living under the boot of some foreign power. Here it works for the right because adventurism builds the hero narrative that drives them. I don't want to die in a revolution so that I can be a mushroom farmer who works in better conditions, but they grow up wanting to fight the Marvel battle for the white race or defend their flag from the barbarians or dress up in a soldier costume and LARP in a militia while not doing cardio. When they see a Rittenhouse or a Roof or probably a Bobbit in the coming months it's a martyr. We've got martyrs too but they're not the idiot who shot up a baseball game or the Dayton guy. They're people who existed within very narrow conditional parameters where that group needed some kamikaze spirit to inspire a practical thing. If I woke up today to the opposite headline, that 7 people had died to some lone wolf in Florida, I wouldn't go grab my guns to join no one while the right would be scrambling to grab theirs and join the militias at the remaining 49 capitals. There's no militia for me to join with more than like a dozen or two people and I think there might be two or three within a 10 hour drive.
Assassination attempts are on a higher practical tier for me, but even then it's narrowly conditional for us and much more practical for the right. Killing Hitler made sense in the 20s before there were large numbers of cohesive fascists, in the 30s it would have created overwhelming tit-for-tat retribution violence. In the 40s it would have replaced him with a more competent military leader and impeded the Soviets from their more righteous and efficient purge of those same fascists. Even if he had gone after the governor of that state that governor is a generic ghoul replaced within a day by a functioning empire. Even going after a national leader would be stupid because they're being replaced anyway and it would only encourage every militia in the country to immediately rise up in response. Those remaining capital protests would probably be slaughters by paranoid people claiming Antifers were about to copycat. If they got inside the capitol, I'd agree with like five people in there on policy but not ideology and the rest are royal terrorists who kill countless innocent people every year by depriving them of healthcare. I'm not going to join the local democrats and launch a gun control countercoup for Joe Rapist Biden, and even losing one of the good politicians wouldn't make me think going after Large White Republican #42069 is the practical tactic in that moment.
The analysis of militant individual "insurrectionism" or what you call adventurism is one that doesn't and can't happen alone in front of a screen. It has to be done in a collective and while some collectives did - for wrong material analysis e.g. the Red Army Faction - decide to try to start a prolonged people's struggle the situations in the imperial core for it are seldom there - and the options for individual acts of violence can't be used to change a collective and systemic problem. That said assassinations and their attempts of Fascist leaders like Franco's successor and Hitler and his leading elements are to be applauded.
However in situations where there is no organized resistance and alliance from outside your country e.g. second world war, there is little to be gained from them.
:amber-snacking:
Actually that meets what I say.
That's more or less the moral/strategic logic I frame terrorism around. It's purely conditional and our window for it being effective is much smaller than the right's. In contexts like the IRA or RAF or 17N, they were countries living under the boot of some foreign power. Here it works for the right because adventurism builds the hero narrative that drives them. I don't want to die in a revolution so that I can be a mushroom farmer who works in better conditions, but they grow up wanting to fight the Marvel battle for the white race or defend their flag from the barbarians or dress up in a soldier costume and LARP in a militia while not doing cardio. When they see a Rittenhouse or a Roof or probably a Bobbit in the coming months it's a martyr. We've got martyrs too but they're not the idiot who shot up a baseball game or the Dayton guy. They're people who existed within very narrow conditional parameters where that group needed some kamikaze spirit to inspire a practical thing. If I woke up today to the opposite headline, that 7 people had died to some lone wolf in Florida, I wouldn't go grab my guns to join no one while the right would be scrambling to grab theirs and join the militias at the remaining 49 capitals. There's no militia for me to join with more than like a dozen or two people and I think there might be two or three within a 10 hour drive.
Assassination attempts are on a higher practical tier for me, but even then it's narrowly conditional for us and much more practical for the right. Killing Hitler made sense in the 20s before there were large numbers of cohesive fascists, in the 30s it would have created overwhelming tit-for-tat retribution violence. In the 40s it would have replaced him with a more competent military leader and impeded the Soviets from their more righteous and efficient purge of those same fascists. Even if he had gone after the governor of that state that governor is a generic ghoul replaced within a day by a functioning empire. Even going after a national leader would be stupid because they're being replaced anyway and it would only encourage every militia in the country to immediately rise up in response. Those remaining capital protests would probably be slaughters by paranoid people claiming Antifers were about to copycat. If they got inside the capitol, I'd agree with like five people in there on policy but not ideology and the rest are royal terrorists who kill countless innocent people every year by depriving them of healthcare. I'm not going to join the local democrats and launch a gun control countercoup for Joe Rapist Biden, and even losing one of the good politicians wouldn't make me think going after Large White Republican #42069 is the practical tactic in that moment.