General – Half-Light Run

Anarchist (and other) Counterinsurgents

Moving from simply shitting on legalitarians, so-called anarchists, antifascists, and militants are again indistinguishable from liberals on the topics of such things as.. assassinations. Rest in Piss, Charlie Kirk, it should’ve happened sooner, but let me make my point.

These “radicals” cannot fathom that when politics or values finally click for some random adult about what has been happening (whether it be genocide or the general state of the world), that their response of violence is an impossible reality, it cannot be genuine, it must be fake or something else entirely. The appropriate reaction to witnessing genocide is to be a placated lamb that must shuffle into a left organization to be then given the most ineffective series of next steps in resisting a genocide.

These people are committing the first sin of counterinsurgency by doing everything they can to suggest that your initial, violent response cannot be genuine. There is no way in hell you would ever dream of resorting to “political” violence in the face of everyday violence. There is no way a person, in less than a year, can go from normie to assassin. It must be a false flag and if isn’t a false flag, it must be a right winger eating their own, because as we know, the right is brave enough to kill their own for whatever reasons, but the left isn’t brave enough to kill in revenge of thousands of dead children.

They cannot fathom a world where a person hits a train of knowledge and experiences that their first response, reasonably, is something violent must be done because it’s clearly the only way out. The interesting twist here is when the counterinsurgents identify as an anarchists, centering their social media accounts about militancy and rights, but immediately don the profession of a true crime podcaster the moment someone assassinates a right wing ideologue.

So, in their disbelief, they become the first form of social repression, the first to discredit, the first to reign in, and the first to exile.

Why?

The reality is, despite whatever language they may use, is that they are afraid of this spilling out into a full blown conflict because whatever utopia they want, they want to find some magical way to get there without bloodshed or in some magical V for Vendetta fuckass ending.

The answer really is cowardice, it isn’t even a simplification, it is just another pathetic acknowledgement.

Preemptive Mourning

We had a gathering recently of all kinds. Long time radicals, newer folks struggle to reconcile with the status quo, but largely all under the typical formulations of a non-profit movement space. My interest was not so much the event itself, but capturing the would-be disenfranchised who will realize how far this space does not go and the frustrations of who inhabits said space.

At a personal level, my approach to this was correct, and it did happen, but even moreso than I anticipated. One person even let me know through a post-it that I was the reason they continued to remain in the org because my politics presented a breakaway to heavily summarize what they wrote.

This is nothing of a report back, but one of the constant frustrations kept happening that I recognized as a constant byproduct of “mass” organizing. The trainings, the events, were always a “101” type of event with people from primarily outside the organization presenting to the organization. It was trash in multiple ways with the primary drivers of said trash always revealing themselves to be Leninists or some variant of authoritarian socialist. The last gathering a year ago had people motivated and for many, this was their second time, but the distaste and conflicts emerged in a way they hadn’t prior. Folks felt largely like they were being told nothing new with back-to-back crammed sessions that felt short. I could blame the organizers of the event, and I do, but the attitudes of membership also revealed this constant catering to the lowest denominator.

During one breakout, a person commented that the org’s social media videos were too long (despite being less than two minutes) and a video that wasn’t like at most thirty seconds wouldn’t work.

I had to fight every frustration not to be rude. We’re seeing military occupations coast to coast, parking lot raids, concentration camps, and your community cannot be bothered to watch a minute that’s less than two minutes providing an analysis of said military occupation and perhaps what to do about it?

At a certain point, we have to abandon this counter-insurgent kindness, which really is harm displacement. I’m kind to you now, so that you may better be a victim down the line, because you can’t get your head in the fucking game.

If your community’s survival is dependent on thirty second videos or forms of information that exist that are smaller than in zine format, then let’s get the preemptive mourning out of the way because your community should start digging their own graves, if that isn’t too much effort.

We can only breakdown information so much and at a certain point, if we are catering to the shallowest of analysis, then we’re watering ourselves down to be so diluted as to be ineffective. It is not our problem that our accessible resources cannot stretch the concept of accessibility further without fundamentally destroying what it is able to accomplish.

I have severe ADHD and my kidneys cannot handle the medications that would benefit me most, so I must find ways to navigate how to educate myself at odds with my ADHD, but I do so because my loved ones are my priority. It doesn’t mean theory is impossible to me, it means there are more challenges to theory, and I appreciate the ability of those to make it more accessible, but at some point,

I have to PICK UP A FUCKING BOOK AND READ IT.

I cannot process the information for you and if you cannot process it for yourself, despite whatever efforts we make to get you said information, that is on you.

You are on your own.

But again, this is the problem of thinking everyone needs to be catered too. It’s like when we cater to the fence sitters of genocide rather than cater to those who already have the values, the politics, and merely need to be driven into action.

I know how unkind this sounds, but it is far less cruel than giving every excuse under the sun for people not to do the work of self-organization, to do the work of self-liberation. Your freedom is not alone the pursuit of others, and the work of liberation is not a task you can pawn off on the most able. If you believe that is the case, then let us get right to the mourning, so we won’t squander our tears by the time the inevitable happens.

A Small Word on Blood Money

Online discourse once again shows its ass, but this time it takes form in folks misunderstanding what it means to be a settler and complicit.

For all the hollow conversation about privilege, they did not take the logic present and take it to its furthest conclusion. I’ll present the argument being made then I will attack it. I won’t name the twitter user since she seems incapable of handling critique and stress and its her argument that matters anyways.

She was pissed at the site of a zine, calling it transmisogyny, and the trans author of said zine was merely pointing out that in the struggle for trans liberation we may lose access to necessary medications because actively engaging in resistance against empire would undermine your ability to access it.

That is a completely reasonable take.

This liberal rants “it is not okay to demand anyone sacrifice healthcare or go to prison for your crusade, esp those of us who are more at risk.” which having seen the zine, is such a leap considering that author was not demanding a thing, it was rather lowkey in its tone.

It is the typical gut check assumption that someone who would make such a claim cannot be one of the people more at risk because people who are more at risk are somehow never capable of a militant understanding of resistance, that despite our health issues, disabilities, whatever, we would not be willing to jeopardize ourselves further for a cause because..

Why would we?

The logic only works if you assume reform is the only solution here which is clearly the case with the amount of white trans women playing counterinsurgent in the comments, referring to the author of said zine as being suicidal or lashing out on emotions. Nevermind reducing a trans author’s critiques of the current trans liberalism being invalidated, calling it emotional, that in itself isn’t transmisogynistic right?

We can only ever approach change as safely as possible in a way that does not disturb ourselves as individuals, which is so deeply tied to the status quo.

I’ll take a step further because I am meaner on this than the author.

If you are unwilling to risk yourself, not just in confrontation with police and military, but unwilling to jeopardize your health because your health is deeply connected with the maintenance of the violent settler status quo, then you have been offered a bribe of blood money and took it. This is not even exclusive to the topic of health, but of lifestyle, of food, the list goes on and is far from exclusive to trans healthcare. If you’re unwilling to get into trouble because trouble means a denial of “benefits”, whether from the state or corporation, and you want those “benefits” so you’re willing to avoid getting in trouble:

That is the essence of settler complicity even if you are one of the historically oppressed groups.

I use the term benefits loosely and only in the ways of which they are presented, but I’ll coin it as what it is. If you’re unwilling to get into trouble because trouble means a denial of necessities, whether from the state or corporation, and you want those necessities, so you’re willing to avoid getting in trouble:

The argument remains the same. They are paying you to not resist and you are choosing not to resist. You’re a settler taking blood money, even if you had indigenous ancestry.

People love to understandably condemn veterans participating in a regime and potentially committing violence to receive material benefits of the state, but you’re suddenly the bad person if you extend that logic to the everyday settler who materially benefits from its operations even if they disagree with it. It is the same logic that liberals seemingly condemn among conservatives, “You condemn it publicly, then enjoy it in private” that you condemn the violence of empire and yet reap its rewards?

“There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism” correct and a cop out, but there is also actual resistance and then there’s counterinsurgency that we call it reform. You are not speaking from a position of analysis, from a position of strategy, you are speaking because you don’t want to feel complicit when you are, and it is an insecurity you are unable to tangle with, a face you are unwilling to look at in the mirror.

Every justification to not immediately overthrow empire, every justification to reform, every personal reason to justify the violent hierarchy, whenever you say, “We can’t do this because it would endanger us” what you are really saying is, “Yeah, we are killing other people, but we can’t risk us too to try to stop it.”

It is a constant reminder that harm reduction, for many cases, is not a real thing. Sure, it is real when it comes to a needle exchange, but voting for Kamala Harris was characterized as harm reduction and we know it was not. No. It is harm displacement. You are presented with blood money and you become the most vocal proponent of displacing harm, not mitigating it.

Guiding Lights for this Rupture

Finally, we’re seeing some semblance of the George Floyd Uprising now and the militants in action. The west coast has been particularly example setting, but we also must commend those incarcerated uprising in Delaney Hall, a detention facility in New Jersey, along with the militants who’ve arrived to support the unrest. Solidarity to those not simply dreaming of liberation, but acting on it.

I would like to offer some guiding lights in this moment for any would-be insurrectionaries or insurrectionaries contemplating what to do next as a result of conversations I’ve had with friends and what has been seen in recent actions.

Bring the War Here

Angelenos were able to disrupt ICE operations through their militant actions on the streets, politicians later confirmed. In the Bay, although non-violent and not as escalated as it could be, two courts were shut down ensuring no immigrant would arrive to a proceeding just to get removed by ICE whatever the outcome. Many of us know this, but to put it more precisely into words:

Every ICE, cop, and soldier occupied by a militant is one less boot putting someone in a camp or helping Israel perpetuate its genocide. A total upheaval, regardless of what comes after, will force the state to contend with it and unable to carry out its will in the ways it’d prefer. If we can force the government to bring its soldiers back from abroad and if we can keep ICE from deporting people, we’re doing more than whatever any reformist can offer. We must find avenues to escalate and adapt as the situation adjusts. Whatever works for fueling the fire, toss it in.

We can’t shy away from the moment, despite whatever complaints from pearl-clutching legalitarians may have about adventurists. They’ve shown their worthlessness over the course of their whole existence, but they’ve shown how especially worthless they are since Oct 7th, 2023. The opinions of those whose existence is materially indistinguishable from being six feet under should roll off us like water off an umbrella.

Every Camera, A Cop

Waymos were treated rather wonderfully, called into protests, and then burned, like a barricade delivery system rather than its original intent: a shitty alternative to taxis and buses while doubling as a surveillance entity. The burning of Waymos was a direct attack on the surveillance state and we must expand it further. I have not seen this come up as much as it had during the first Trump admin, but back then, people with cameras, phone or otherwise, were regularly treated with hostility even if they were on “our side”.

There are too many fucking people holding a phone and thinking they’re doing something other than preserving evidence for cops. No, you getting the “truth” out into the world is not doing jack shit, the truth hasn’t been relevant for some time, but you are certainly in proximity to being a cop more than you are some form of resistance. We need to reignite that hostility and if we want to be polite about it, tell these fucks to do something more than doubling-down on being a bystander, otherwise, let them know they’re doing cop work, and if they don’t adjust accordingly, treat them like a cop.

It is not enough to go after them either. We have to create entire zones of hostility towards every form of surveillance. Rip off those ring door cameras whenever you see them, whatever camera you can’t reach, spray paint. If you clear a few city blocks of cameras, wheatpaste signs letting folks know that area is a no-surveillance zone, and cameras will be actively attacked. If we could create entire city blocks without cameras, people like Luigi would have an even better chance of getting away. If you know a protest is going down on a Friday, it might be worth doing a camera-disabling tour that Thursday.

Don’t Vacate The Bullshit

Maybe I am writing this to convince myself, but we cannot abandon all of the normie protest bullshit. It should be our turn to co-opt, but the challenge is navigating this without losing a sense of self, going mad over the usual bullshit, and committing to action while dodging peace police. I remember what initially led me to anarchism, to anarchists. I was at a very normie protest, huge, but a typical march. I forget what started it, a cop was moving to arrest a protestor, and someone I knew who had identified as an anarchist mumbled, “Someone should intervene.” They then intervened, it was the first time I had ever witnessed a de-arrest, and I was awestruck. I did not know if I was an anarchist then, but what I do know is that sealed my fate with anarchists, that they would be the ones I ride and die for, that if I did anything, it would always be with them.

Although that was my individual experience, I have seen this happen to newer comrades as well. Propaganda of the deed, but the deed being something as small and as hardcore as de-arresting, it is these moments of breaking from the usual routine that inspire onlookers that there is perhaps something more, that they too could do this. I know this is a tough ask because so-called radicals have gotten worse, there is no denying it. The way they tossed Elias Rodriguez under the bus, they way the fedjacket those rightfully critiquing PSL, or how AROC actively prevented protestors from occupying boats, the worst part about being a militant since 2023 has not been the state, but the heightened hostility of leftists towards militants within this moment. I’d argue they are significantly worse this time around than they were under the first Trump administration and this makes it harder to share space, not just in the streets, but in community spaces, organizing spaces, the list goes on.

In my recent experience, I saw a list from Palestinian liberals talking about how Elias was “not a part of the movement” and how his actions undermined it. I’d like to resoundingly say, fuck them and whoever’s movement they claim to be apart of. I’d rather be aligned with a thousand Elias’ than a single Palestinian-American two-state organization that is condemned by Palestinian militants in Palestine. This experience made me want to burn ties with the groups I’d been involved in that at least tolerated this messaging, although fortunately did not actually make any comments.

So why have I remained? Because I see who I intercept by being here. This org will never do what I think is important, many of its members won’t commit to any meaningful actions, and many of them are here in a ritual of guilt. The few who show restlessness, who show discontent, who want more though, they come here looking for something, and they won’t find it, but I will work with them to find it for them and hopefully set them on a path that will actually generate conflict. I think these relationships are worth the suffering of dealing with this incessant liberal bullshit and from there, further develop our own networks. It isn’t enough to remain, we must also be vocal in our disagreements, but articulate. I’ve come out of discussions where I was the primary voice of dissent and that attracted people to talk to me, to vent their similar frustrations, and those are the moments of interception we seek.

An additional, tiny note. I notice the orgs committing to most action (I won’t name names) tend to be associated with Maoists and get derided by anarchists as a result. Completely understandably. I also know the anarchists deriding them. Yes, you, I know you, and I know you’re an armchair shit talker whose highest crime will always be tagging at best. An armchair anarchist is hardly worthy to be called an anarchist, why are you being upstaged by Maoists? An associate of mine was angrily handwringing about the Houthi’s politics back in 2024 and I commented, I certainly don’t disagree, so how does it feel when such a group with shitty politics is doing more and risking more to confront a genocide than you are? How do you come to terms with that? The silence was loud. Your silence is also loud. Get in the fucking streets and do more than sign holding. I’d rather be with some weird Maoist in the streets than sharing a couch with you deriding them.

The world is offline

I have seen, particularly among disabled leftist twitter, an obsession with shitting on anything about in-person organizing. I’ve mentioned this in prior posts as someone who is pretty severely disabled, these folks project rather painfully onto the entirety of radicals who rightfully talk about the importance of organizing in-person. I am also writing this while I have COVID as a result of my job putting me in a situation where I got exposed. Oh to have a chronic respiratory issues and now having COVID on top of that.

I cannot understate, especially after my time in union organizing, that if you are not meeting in-person, then nothing is materially happening. You cannot organize militancy over signal, you cannot organize confrontation over the internet. If you are confronting the state, you must be socializing in-real life. There is no way around this. If a person is not willing to meet up in person to hash things out, that person isn’t reliable for anything, it doesn’t matter what they say over the phone or over signal. I’ve been in a thousand zoom/jitsi meetings and every in-person meeting is worth at least a hundred of them.

The communities you build online you can find are easily broken the moment the transition to real world, that is the test. Don’t mistake talking in a bunch of online group chats to share gofundmes as actual, material organizing. I’ve witnessed a hundred “online organizers” and witnessed nothing of rapport having emerged from them. Anyone disagreeing with this, I am going to hold your hand when I say this, I’d bet my life you are never engaging in direct confrontation with the state, so you aren’t even the audience of this writing. If your organizing doesn’t lead to some kind of physical confrontation, it is organizing that seeks to exist within the confines of capital and the state, not against it.

The Now, Not The When

I’ve frequently heard radicals (liberals) say “don’t let perfect become the enemy of good” and it is always used in defense of not actually doing anything meaningful and having standards for actions, like when you inform them a march or a protest isn’t a direct action.

What does the actual logic of don’t let perfect become the enemy of “good” when we put it into practice?

People have an obsession with that we are not prepared enough, we do not have alternative networks, we don’t have “dual power” (bullshit), so therefore, we should be wary about committing to actions we do not have the infrastructure to support.

No.

Abandon the measure. Don’t let “dual power” or some other myth become the enemy of actually doing anything. Could we confidently say we are underskilled and under-resourced in relevant things? Certainly, but measuring the capacity for action is strictly a measurement founded in a lack of courage. We may never have the resources, even if we have the skills, and that should never stop us (partly because the actions could get us those resources).

We must treat this as a day-to-day affair. The left’s obsession with a long-term strategy is precisely why we’ll sooner die of an ecological collapse than have any kind of liberation. I won’t name orgs, but I’ve seen the documents where the “movement” has propositions for what should be done over the course of a coming decade.

We don’t have a decade, you chucklefucks will be lucky if you get another worthless election to participate in a few years.

We must ask ourselves what the moment now demands of us and answer it. If it’s Saturday and it calls for you dropping caltrops in front of an ICE van, then so be it. If it’s Sunday and it calls for you doing pepper-spray drills, then so be it. We must also ask what we demand of the moment. Do we need to meet more people, do we need to try to pull those that are willing into the fray and show them what to do? You aren’t a fighter until you try. It is all confidence. No one came into this world all ready experienced at de-arresting or knifing tires, its something that happens when the fear of failing yourself, loved ones, and your beliefs outweighs the fear of repression. I’m so afraid of death, I am so deeply terrified of it, and I am infinitely more terrified of dying as a coward, as someone unworthy of being an anarchist.

The limitations of the George Floyd Uprising was our inability to keep the flame going, to tolerate peace police, to allow counterinsurgents like APTP to get away with shutting down actions because of their own cowardice. We must find a way to let the fires burn and keep them burning until everything is consumed.

Bombing Social Relations

In 1978-1979, the Libertarian Socialist Organisation in Australia published a complete liberal, counter-insurgent drivel that the state couldn’t have written better titled “You can’t blow up a social relation”.

Thank god that not only do I not have any expectations of Australian anarchists similarly to UK anarchists, but I expect them also to be anti-militant cowards that are democratic socialists in-denial. It is almost a surprise they didn’t advocate for a transitional state during the course of the article. If you ever read this article and found it worthwhile, I know you’re the pathetic kind of anarchist I refuse to consider among my peers!

It isn’t even just alone because of their critique of “terrorism”, it is their eagerness to compare Palestinians seeking continued resistance against Israel to Spanish fascists while calling them terrorists, their eagerness to condemn Sacco and Vanzetti, their eagerness as settlers to condemn indigenous resistance while parading as if having theoretical superiority, it victim-blames all resistance, and it essentially argues that only non-violence is the right path without ever uttering non-violence (because of the implication that ANY violence allows the state to repress the left, so we should just not).

They want to point out the failures of revolutionaries, I’m looking at the Australia and I, too, can see generations of anarchist failures using their own measurements. From 1978 to 2025, the apple didn’t fall far from the sickly tree.

They condemn guerrilla movements as a “very poor showing in the area of ideas” while having offered nothing that is meaningful to the anarchist current anywhere beyond being a place to shit.

I’ll take it a step further, I have critiques of the Spanish anarchists and their choices in the Spanish Civil War, but my critiques aren’t remotely akin to the liberalism written in these pathetic ramblings. They then drop the biggest tell of being a shit anarchist even ignoring their incredible painful critiques and that’s by positively associating democracy with anarchism.

It’s annoying enough that Crimethinc, of course, uncritically referred to this article when providing an analysis on assassinations in 2018. With the way the LSO writes about Palestine, you’d assume they want them to roll over and die or as they’d describe it, wait for the appropriate material conditions to develop through creating a mass movement under a campaign of political education. Despite the fact they keep listing urban guerrillas with whatever authoritarian label, some of their arguments sound akin to crypto-Leninism. I digress.

I hope the authors of this article suffered or are suffering if they’re alive. Their insolence is astounding and I can all ready visualize what these motherfuckers look like. What trash.

That’s besides the point. You can blow up a social relation. It is like when people conceptualize the digital cloud as something immaterial, something that cannot be done about it.

This is simply not true.

The cloud is material. It is server farms galore. You can destroy it, just like you can destroy anything else. My only concern is blowing things up lacks the precision the moment demands of us (sometimes).

The semi-problem is, and what these authors fail to understand, is that guerrilla warfare despite it being irregular and unconventional, still holds to certain premises of warfare that undermine it.

When we confine conflict to territorial ambitions or resource control or strategic locations or even acts of propaganda, we restrict ourselves in our offensive capabilities. Liberating a city in a traditional sense, i.e., clearing the place block by block until the “enemy” is gone forces us to fight in a way that we merely may not have a capacity for, but interrupting the ability to carry out normal economic life or the ability to enforce laws can open up the realm for what actions look like.

Dams are an ecological harm wherever they exist unless the beavers made them. A more traditional look of fighting may have us wanting to secure the dam for some purpose like controlling water or generating power, but we seek the liberation of all to include the land. The dam is not a site to be secured, it too is an enemy to be destroyed. Perhaps just a little more carefully. Yes, I did start this by discussing social relations, but I couldn’t help to make the point here. Let’s think of another one.

The docks that bring in trade. The only time we’ve seen the world make progress globally in terms of the environment was global trade shutting down as the result of the pandemic. This should’ve given us food for thought, this should’ve been a call to action.

We cannot go after every ship in the ocean, but we can go after the docks in our backyard and the ones responsible for all the freight? All the boxes? The massive sites of logistics? If we can shut them down permanently, what wonders could we accomplish? A hundred people would struggle to be successful pirates against so many ships within the pacific, but a hundred people demolishing the nearest trade port? Doable, completely.

Oh, but the workers! No, I don’t subscribe to the leftist myth of the workers being in an inherent moral position. The ILWU regularly regurgitates their radical laurels of how they didn’t load supplies for ships aiding in South African apartheid. Which, great, except they’ve willingly loaded ships for the genocide in Palestine, they’ve not done a damn thing to actually contribute to blocking boats beyond telling some militants that they should maybe do. They hold an outsized influence to what they actually are now: a counter-insurgent force ensuring no militant on the west coast will risk blocking a boat without the bigger so-called left condemning them.

Fascist Italy couldn’t have existed without the the fascist unions, which outnumbered the fascist party by 3 to 1.

I will make no mistake in assuming unions as inherently radical, I will make no mistake in assuming workers holding a moral position and to center strategy around that. We are in a fight for our lives, condemned by the lack of urgency of those radicals before us, and we must recognize ways that social “abstractions” are very material and real targets, much like the cloud’s server farms.

Coping Mechanisms as Symptoms of Failure

The deaths of Margaret Thatcher and Henry Kissinger are reoccurring celebrations for left social media among many other of the capitalist elite. The jokes about public toilets, the celebration of their dying, I’d partaken it in it myself once.

You’d almost forget they lived full lives with zero consequences and died in a way most of their victims only could dream of.

It’s a coping mechanism and one that indicates a larger issue within would-be radicals.

How many people spearheaded the cruel violence of capital and got to live out to the end of their days peacefully? How many of those do we celebrate that they passed of natural causes? If only I had such enemies, I could be certain to fear nothing in my whole life, that I could die well into my 90s because the people who want me dead will cheer then as if they’ve personally buried me.

It’s like when the current-fascists make a blunder like inviting a journalist into a signal group chat. What a bunch of fools, right? Ha ha, look at how unintelligent they are.

Never-mind that they’re outsmarted liberals and progressives, never-mind that they’re accomplishing all of their goals, never-mind that they’re ramping their death machine up, never-mind that they’re getting everything they wanted, and you are getting nothing, nothing, but a fucking chuckle.

Will that comfort you when they have you standing over the grave they had you dig out for yourself?

Will that comfort you with three walls and a set of iron bars?

Will you think about the chuckles you used to share with the friend of yours that gets disappeared?

These coping mechanisms feel similarly in line when I see Thatcher and Kissinger are being dreamt of as being in hell or hoping karma will deal with them. It isn’t bad enough to fail in such a way that these intolerably cruel people are left to live a life they denied so many others, but hoping, just hoping that the same god or karmic wheel that allowed their victims to suffer as they had, might be just and righteous enough to do something once they’re buried, is another means of you washing your hands of doing anything.

We cannot trust god or karma or anything other than our own hands as getting any semblance of justice, anything else is merely a conjuration for you to do nothing, because otherwise the reality is we are found guilty of standing by, of being onlookers, of even being enablers. So-called good people will feel like good people whenever they make a smug joke within their appropriate circles and be validated for it, but the audacity to joke without taking a step further, you may as well not joke at all. What’s the point of a doormat that quips?

Let’s take it a step further too. Bless the would-be assassins who attempted, but make no mistake, being their cheerleader doesn’t absolve of you of your inaction. Its a condemnation of your inaction. You would not count yourself among the brave souls either? If I were ever in their shoes and I survived, I’d sooner condemn you than thank you for your support. Being a radical, being a militant, demands that you are not on the bleachers, that you are not on the sidelines, but that you are actively jumping into the field.

I think of that twitter fool “strategy of burning a walmart” and I’m reminded how cowards think one riot is theoretically or strategically comparable to thousands of nonviolent protests, never asking the question, of the thousands of nonviolent protests within a year had been anything other than a nonviolent protest, where would we be at?

If, of the 14,000ish protests in the US between Jan 2024 and March 2025, had been distributed to blockading four major west coast ports in the US over a period of a month, let’s count it as one demonstration a day per port, 4×31, or 124 demonstrations that actively shut down the west coast, we’d hit the economy for hundreds of millions at a minimum, grinding the machine to one of its biggest slowdowns in history.

If 4,616 of those demonstrations turned into riots that burned down a walmart, the retail chain would no longer exist.

We celebrate the peaceful deaths of warmongers, we chuckle that the successes of fascists aren’t neatly polished, and we find a thousand excuses to justify our inaction, whether its hope for a spiritual entity that does justice for us or some rhetoric to avoid admitting cowardice. These are coping mechanisms, not so much for the impending doom, but for the long, on-going, and habitual failures.

Leftwing Conspiracy Theorists are Counter-Insurgents

I was a teenage conspiracy theorists.

I’m a few decades from that point and I find myself with nothing, but contempt for the full-grown adults that engage in infowars level of conspiracies.

The George Floyd Rebellion resoundingly showed that conspiracy theorists, especially those identified as leftist, were among the front line of counterinsurgency and the that inability of the all sorts of radicals, to include militants and anarchists, to interrogate conspiracies offered means it is a counterinsurgency at the root.

We need to confront them.

I’ll break this down, I’m going to lightly touch on the George Floyd Rebellion, go into what happened with Rayshard Brooks, then talk about the rhetoric then what the reality is.

On the Rebellion

I had an associate, one of those odd Bordiga elitist type communists who seemed to associate with anarchists just purely out of hatred for the authoritarian’s piss poor mainstream anti-imperialist takes, and they moved from an area with no meaningful militant scene to an area with a longer history of it. The George Floyd Rebellion popped off and that scene went hard, as to be expected. This person was posting the most asinine conspiracy theories, the “leaving bricks out”, sharing the white dude smashing up an autozone, and complaining about fireworks in their new area during protests.

Aside from the bricks being left by cops bullshit and the irrelevant white dude smashing shit up, I was particularly annoyed at the fireworks comment because I had associated with that scene once. It was a tale as old as time, they’d done that for years even in the smallest groupings, and I confronted them over this. I told them it was a common means of combating cops, this group has a history of this, and that’s just not even considering noise marches. They resisted my comments, that from their high rise condo, they could see the fireworks, and they thought it was suspect.

I asked them, great that you can see it from the high rise, but have you gone to taken the streets at all to confirm this for yourself?

“Well, no..”

The annoyance ran deep.

I had told a white liberal that same uprising to visit the CHAZ (regardless of feelings about it personally, this isn’t a cosigning, but again a “hey, go look for yourself and report back what YOU saw”) and unlike the Leftcom, the white liberal did, and they were shocked at basically how none of the shit they saw on social media matched what they experienced in their day there.

But from that time period, the one that brings me anger the most is the fallout from the murder of Rayshard Brooks. That Wendys had every reason to be burnt the fuck down by a random stranger out of anger even before it was the source of Brooks’ murder. When videos came out, immediately the narrative of “outside agitator” hit, that it was random violent white people invading and causing hell. Nevermind that “outside agitator” was always a counterinsurgent charge lobbied against even MLK and most leftists will buy in significant degrees “outside agitator”. Was is an outside agitator in a global struggle? I digress.

I was angry though. I was messaging locals sharing the videos, people who were eager to call out the murder of Rayshard Brooks while occupying the same role of the cops who killed him in the effort to track down the “outside agitator”. I was mad, we could play true crime social media or what have you, but the impulse again is a long one, the impulse of a conspiracy theorist. To shout “I got one”. We’ll get into the rhetoric, but a conspiracy theorist is just another wannabe cop and they don’t have the self awareness to clock it yet.

I was arguing, telling them to take down the videos, and then finally she got caught, Natalie White, Rayshard Brooks’ girlfriend. I’m a hater first and foremost, but I’m equally a lover, and that broke me. If I was Natalie White, I’d be at a minimum also burning down a fucking Wendys. I remember DMing the locals again, great job you fucking wannabe cop, you got his girlfriend arrested, how’s that going for you? Only to be responded with a deletion of accounts. The cowards knew they were wrong and that simply meant disappearing, no longer associating with the fact that for a brief moment, while vocally condemning the state, they were its most effective counterinsurgent operatives.

I hope those snitches fear everyday of their fucking life. I want the worst for them. They didn’t do this out of fear, they did this as an act to eagerly assimilate into the power structure without a critical thought in their fucking heads. Somehow being the eager snitches of the state and thinking you are acting in opposition to it rather in accordance with is a brain rot most people are seemingly incapable of escaping.

They are in “opposition” to the state, seemingly, until they’re in power. The articulation of conspiracies is to justify either their approach to taking power or to justify their inaction, which I’ll get into. I keep referring to Malatesta, but I think again to him in “Why Fascism Won” when the Italian Republican Giuseppe Benci that their party hasn’t hindered the fascists in power because when they (the Italian Republicans) have the power of the state, they’d want to do more or less the same thing.

The Logic

Let’s break down the logic of these conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy theories, in times of uprising, are always aimed at violence and to suggest that violence is either fake or initiated by an outsider to justify state repression. The alternative is always that nonviolence or inaction is the only good choice. Even “diversity of tactics” or “St Paul’s Principles” motherfuckers will utilize conspiracies in order to condemn militant tactics. I said in another writing I remember being in a march and a young Black boy was banging windows, that he got badjacketed by older Black folks into calming down. A child who was no older than twelve was accused of doing fed shit by being understandably angry in a protest against police violence.

The right wing may most certainly suggest the giant marches of liberals are paid protestors, etc, and this clearly isn’t a conspiracy the left buys because they’re the participants of those protests, but then again, as with leftists against most militants, they have zero hesitation to regurgitate right wing conspiracy theories in matters of tactics they’re uncomfortable with. To summarize:

Leftists don’t regurgitate right-wing talking points of protests being filled with paid-for protestors because they’re often the ones in those protests, but they will happily regurgitate that about militant actions for the exact same reason right-wingers do: because they don’t participate in that and refuse to acknowledge it as a reality to contend with, that there is a mass of people doing some shit they cannot fathom them doing.

We know for the past few decades nonviolence hasn’t done shit and is easily comparable to having done nothing. The anti-war protests, being the largest within American history, were the embodiment of mostly nonviolent protests, and were absolutely worthless. So if we assume that with a few decades of evidence that nonviolent protests are worthless and shift gears to insurgency, rather than being treated with a critical strategic eye, we have conspiracy theorists shouting “no!” “this is the only way” “any other way you are likely a fed” and it keeps the radicals in line because even so-called anarchists will buy a fedjacket wholesale with no evidence beyond a person being a bit to vocally militant.

No one is going to point fingers at the person silencing all dissent and only encouraging nonviolence as being a fed, even though their actions clearly don’t challenge the state and not just that, but they are eagerly working on behalf of the state as a counterinsurgent albeit unconsciously. I want to emphasize that no one is safe from being a conspiracy theorist and even if they don’t regurgitate some arguments, they will do other arguments that make effectively the same conclusions, even if they’re supposedly militant and condemn nonviolent action.

So again the logic here is:

If you are committing violence, you have no reason to actually do that. The only reason you would do that is is you are a fed, an op, or working alongside those who do repression. The only way we can ensure that you are not effective at repressing us is by either only being nonviolent or not doing anything, even if that’s contrary to reality.

It is a lose-lose argument because there’s no reasoning with a conspiracy theorist. If you disagree with this, you must be a fed, must be misinformed, or any number of other things. The problem here is the imagined fed in your head isn’t doing the repressing at this point, it is the conspiracy theorist acting on their conspiracies.

The Extended-Logic

Conspiracy theorists who seemingly do critique liberal nonviolence and call themselves anarchists or militants tend to extend these logics in other means. They’re snakes in the grass, they’re even more insidious than the usual conspiracy theorist because they seem more reasonable, and that reasoning is often rooted in a detachment. These types are usually techies of some kind or center an awareness around digital security or talk about hacking or anything quite a bit. Or they’re elder anarchists who, despite whatever militant talk they have, are materially indistinguishable from the non-profits they collaborate with.

These conspiracy theorists, they’ll perhaps reject the bricks in the streets conspiracy, maybe even someone entertain an infilitrator, but then they may hyper-obsess over something like signal being exposed, being a bad security app, that we shouldn’t used it, yadda yadda. Or they’ll suggest a person is moving through spaces too quickly because they’re good looking and might be an infiltrator on that alone. Let’s stick with the Signal example here, but we can replace signal with any form of technology at this point. This conspiracy theorist is not discussing opsec or just smart digital security, this conspiracy theorist is doing what the other ones do, but again in another way.

The extended logic here is that: the state is an omnipresent and omnipotent force capable of anything and in an effort to fight the state, we have to find ways to dodge its omnipresence and omnipotence. But its omnipresent and omnipotent, so there is no way to dodge it, yet we must dodge it. Therefore, we enter into an endless loop of not taking action against the state, but trying to find a means to circumvent the state, so we can potentially take action against the state, but we can’t find a means because the moment we do, the omnipresence and omnipotence will again have us adapt. Either it monitors all technology in such a way as the inevitability catch you or you finally fall prey to the wrong attractive person.

It is similar to my critiques on mass organizing, but this thinking is a fear-based issue of trying to take action only from a position of comfort and confidence, but there will never be such a thing, so we must take action despite the lack of confidence or comfort. The inaction has to be justified though to the conspiracy theorist, its not that they agree or disagree with fighting the state, but it is that they will always justify a reason not to and scorn reasons to.

This actually has me stumble into my next talking point on the reality, because this train of thought with tech seems like its more reasonable or its evidence based, but its not at all.

The Reality

What I’m discussing here is specific to one instance, but its a massive instance and we see it pop up in smaller forms. On January 20th, 2017, militants fucked up shit in D.C. It was great time. Hundreds took part, more than two hundred were arrested, mostly militants, and whatever technology they had was confiscated on them. Cellphones primarily and within 24 hours, the feds were attempting to log-in to these devices. Undoubtedly, these people were apart of radical networks, used signal, you name it. The feds even used a warrant against the DisruptJ20 website, pulled 1.3 million IP addresses, and they were on the hunt.

Yet by July 2018.. All charges were dropped and nothing resulted from this.

J20 existed and the militants active that day escaped felony charges. If you were to listen to a so-called anarchist conspiracy theorists about digital security and something like signal, you’d assume these people were thoroughly fucked. I’m hard pressed to assume that each of the 200+ people had flawless digital security, had zero record prior, and were the perfect ones to get arrested because there was no way they’d simply be caught.

So what is the alternative explanation for why the 200+ militants didn’t get successfully charged and disappeared? Despite the omnipresence and omnipotence of the state? Why did they, despite having more surveillance and technology than ever before, fail to convict 200+ people who were clearly present at J20 compared to the handful of convictions from the Green Scare in the early 2000s?

Because most successful charges are from the traditional forms of sleuthing and the militants did enough to prevent that by either being mostly properly bloc’d along with other basic security culture shit or a lack of evidence if they failed to do that. The state over-relied on technology and fascist collusion. Militants continued agitating on behalf of comrades during the trial, to such a point that a juror read “google jury nullification” in a bathroom stall, then in fact did google it, then shared it with the court. A small action with a lot of reverberations. Although I mention the good, even then there were still cowards preventing supporters from going on the offensive during the trial, but that’s beyond the purview of what I’m reflecting on at this moment.

The fact that hundreds of people in black bloc could go casually fuck up downtown D.C. on inauguration day and get away with it, even when nearly half were charged and arrested, is an impressive moment in militant history that does not get the credit it deserves. Without a doubt, militants fought police, broke through police lines, got injured during the course of the fighting, caused havoc for an entire day, those that were arrested went through even more hardcore shit, and yet they managed to escape without felonies or fines even though the trial itself was a long challenge.

What’s this to say?

When I hear of militants getting caught up or in trouble, it had little to do with the supposed omnipresence or omnipotence of the state. It was either an action in which trouble was expected or they did worse than the bare minimum to keep themselves safe (showing tattoos, wearing unique identifying apparel, not dealing with surveillance cameras beforehand). It is never “a network of anarchists was uncovered by the CIA hacking their television to surveil a secret meeting”. Their level of technological capability is not actually 1:1 repression capability, it is a flex at best, a blatant lie at worst, and propaganda regardless. Certainly, it is a factor to not be discounted, but mistaking technological capability for immediate and comparable repression is a grave mistake. Cameras are still the main foot soldiers of digital repression and we see this with the successful cases against militants or potential assassins, such as Luigi. When I had dealt with my own bout of repression, it was from my personal fuck up, and a phone call from someone who saw my shit and decided to let the state know. That’s it. Nothing fancy.

The Conclusion

This is not an argument against digital security or to not take the state seriously, but it is to point out that your supposed comrades might, out of fear, be counterinsurgents where their paranoia takes priority over everything else. At a minimal, that paranoia comes in the form of them constantly unwilling to take risks because of getting caught. On the other end, it’s them being very casual about fedjacketing and badjacketing even if its not explicit. Labeling other radicals or militants as dangerous because they aren’t restrained by cowardice, that they don’t let state repression slow them down. This isn’t a defense of people who are incredibly sloppy and loud, but there’s plenty of brave people that border getting fed and badjacketed because they don’t mince words.

You have an obligation, if you are a militant or an anarchist, to deal with these motherfuckers if you are true to your name. They’re likely the person actively help stir up general paranoia in your scenes that results in you becoming a bunch of do-nothings. They likely bloc actions, they get more militant people removed from scenes, and they plant the distrust the state needs for repression to succeed. Repression needs isolation and these conspiracy theorists are masters of isolating people out of their own cowardice, but acting as if they’re simply protecting their friends, when in reality, they’re ensuring their friends remain anarchists only in name.

Take stock of your own communities. Whose regularly put out paranoid takes that slowed you down or prevented an action entirely? Whose paranoia has driven who from what scenes? Whose paranoia is within reason, who manages to still take action vs whose paranoia is unfounded and prevents action? Whose been able to leverage a position of informal authority (knowledge-based) to stop your groups from doing anything? Whose been the gatekeeper to “protect” the scene while ensuring actions look like another liberal march? Whose conspiracy theories are always seemingly adjacent to fascists? Who regularly spews unfounded concerns with no evidence? Whose quick to fedjacket? To badjacket? Whose a hypocrite, condemning how you act online, maybe rightfully, but hosting a podcast that gets used for actual evidence in a trial? Whose paranoia ensures that whatever you do, it’s minimal? Ask yourself these questions to reflect on the likelihood you’ve been a victim and if you haven’t been a victim, maybe you’ve been an enabler. How should you rectify that?

1984 was a horror story about government false flag operations in a dystopia getting you caught up in resisting and anyone whose read it keeps that part as a parable, ignoring the part where the author was a snitch, which is a far more real threat than a government false flag operation that’ll get you caught up. Probably because the real lesson here would be not to associate with a democratic socialist.

American Cowardice

I hate this introduction, because I don’t believe my experience matters, but I also understand from a rhetorical standpoint why I should, so I’ll write it out to condemn it before proceeding.

What I advocate for is not you to taking risks that I would not take for myself. I am an anonymous person online, you can’t confirm that, and the bitter twist of fate is that if I’m ever identified as the author, it would both verify what I say while also undermining why I am choosing to remain anonymous.

I’ve been in a shootout, I’ve had rubber bullets shot at me and witnessed it remove a man’s eye, I’ve been doorknocked by the FBI, I’ve been detained at the border with handguns drawn on me, and a myriad of other things. Not once have I been deterred as a result of these experiences, surely I’ve had trauma related to them, but deterred?

Absolutely not.

Again, my experiences are only here to justify to you, I could not share them, or have them, but I need to justify myself to you to be heard, even though my critique, even if it was made by someone with zero of my experiences, would remain as valid.

The problem here is that others (my then-comrades) have been scared, not by being victims of state repression as I have, but by being in community with me as I have gone through state repression. They fell victim to the point of repression: isolation.

Counterinsurgency, at its core, is about isolating the most militant among us, and while I was not deterred by the FBI, I was not deterred by the violence, I was not deterred by being detained, many comrades and would-be comrades were.

They were not victimized, they were not doorknocked, but they were scared, even if they were not involved in my immediate organizing, and they stepped away. I was the victim and they weren’t, but proximity to my own trauma was enough for them.

There was no tactical or strategic reason for this. None whatsoever and the years that passed only cemented on much of their politics were an aesthetics rather than a pursuit of liberation. They were and are not, I am certain, doing anything worthy of state repression and needed to isolate to carry out acts of resistance. Shit, I was not doing anything worthy of the state repression I had received, and yet, it happened.

I say this with love in my heart, but their response was that of cowardice. Their response is not alone or unique, it is the hegemonic feeling that governs almost the entirety of American radicals, save for a handful scattered coast to coast. They deny this though and they find a thousand different reasons to justify it, reasons that seemingly only exist in the western world or at least within the English-speaking west with due respect to militants in western countries that aren’t Anglophones.

But, my context is specific to the so-called US, and therefore, the cowards I am directing this at are the ones we can summarize as Americans.

It’s clear radicals are in as worse position than they were in 2016-2020 and I think the most militant among them, if I am being generous, have not disappeared or given up, but clearly saw the continuous liberal counterinsurgency and rather than tolerate their bullshit marches or protests, simply chose not to engage and remain within their respective scenes.

The only problem here is even the smallest militant influences on these people have ceased to exist and we don’t even get the bare minimum occupation of ICE facilities. I don’t blame militants for vacating these spaces more than I blame the left for always bending over backwards to peace police and basically making any willful militant who’d compromise with them to some degree live in an eternal political hell.

Revolutionary anti-fascist militants (not run-of-the-mill anti-fascists who should drop the label) that actively engaged with legalitarians were, whether they’d admit it or not, unfortunately engaging in self-harm the whole organizing time. I digress.

Back to the topic at hand. So-called radicals well-into this second Trump administration have made it completely clear across social media that this is the worst possible case scenario and they’re willing to even do less about it. If the anti-ICE militancy of the first administration was maintained into the current year, there at least would’ve been some interference.

Yet where are the Occupy ICEs, where are the Willem van Spronsens? The facility Willem attacked is the same-still-existing prison corporate entity, GEO Group, that has been collaborating with Texas for Operation Lone Star for committing the horrors we see now, except also back under Biden.

There is no legal solution here. I’ve known this for as long as I understood anarchism, I knew this before I was an anarchist trying to get an “innocent” person out of prison under Obama. They keep asking is this legal and they keep not getting the fucking hint. It never mattered and the fascists are just really exemplary of how it never mattered. The only solution to Bukele is Luigi and the only solution to CECOT is for us to destroy it by any means necessary.

I get if you aren’t willing to go that far,
but guess what the halfway point is here?
What the compromise is here for you?

It’s running interference against ICE. It’s interrupting the flights, it’s de-arresting, it’s hiding people, it’s slashing tires, the list goes on. If you think there has to be another way, I’ve got something for you.

Your struggle is not a lack of creativity to find an alternative means of resistance, your struggle is being a coward when the useful means of resistance are presented before you. There is no safe way to fight back. Again, I am not asking yourself to get arrested or to be cannon fodder, but I also am asking you to not avoid risks.

Do the risky work and risk the arrest.

Don’t avoid arrest by avoiding doing the work.

Well, that is the problem though isn’t it? Cowardice is the hegemonic feeling guiding most of you. You’ll engage in the theatrics of arrest, which I will always advise against, not because its particularly traumatic, but because an arrest is politically hollow. You did a protest, then stayed overnight in a jail cell, then got released with maybe a ticket, all in the name for a cause.

Congratulations, you think this means something, but for many normies, this is an excessive weekend in a college town in the early 2000s. Jokes aside, it is also just the reality of being unhoused and poor. I had a friend spend a weekend in jail for being drunk on a bicycle trying to get home then get a DUI for it.

Should I laud this as an act of political resistance if we’re going to use the act of arrest as a measure for political importance? It is just the reality of being someone society wants to disappear for whatever particular reason they feel on any given day. It isn’t a measurement of effective action for the most part. Considering the background of most of you though, no wonder you cannot distinguish it because it may unfortunately perhaps be the most exciting thing in your life and exciting must mean effective, right?

The arrest means nothing, it is a response to a perceived nuisance, not a threat in most contexts. It’s when the felonies drop, when the raids go non-stop, when a manhunt is issued for you, when friends disappear like during the George Floyd Rebellion, that is when we have some semblance of measure, but that starts getting to scary, right?

I’m not a fan of measurements though, only in-so-far to tell you what is a bad measurement, but I don’t think offering “good” measurements is useful either.

I am here to tell you that the vast majority American radicals will find every reason, real or imagined, to not do the damned thing.

“There’s not enough people”
“The police will just kill us”
“We’ll all get disappeared”
“The military will shut us down”
“They’ll just drone strike you”
The list goes on.

Despite the fact the Green Scare victimized only a handful of people, it has been an effective talking point by so-called anarchists into doing absolutely fuck-all nothing. It was incredibly effective act of repression of the state, not by the number of anarchists it fucked over, but the number of anarchists who used it as a counterinsurgent talking point against militancy.

It’s telling, right?

The American Radical situation is not that concentration camp doom of a Palestinian in Gaza, yet even their children will pick up a rock to sling it at a tank. I say this as I recall seeing a younger Black boy get badjacketed by slightly older peers for banging on a window during a protest in a big city.

The eagerness to quell the slightest impulse of militancy is thorough.

I think of the two Latinas out in LA who lauded that their anti-Trump protest earlier this year was “effective at preventing a riot”.

The white queer who just assimilates in the midwest and figures they can ride it out until the next election (as if there is one).

Eager bootlickers emerge of every color, sexuality, and gender who will do everything to say, “I’m the good one, not me, don’t hurt me, hurt them.”

The police will kill you, but they’ll do it even if you aren’t doing a thing worth doing. We can’t let the fear of death halt the struggle for life. There are people who protest knowing they’ll die and I think that’s far more worthwhile than sign-holding hoping you’ll live. I also think some of us dying is an unavoidable part of the process of becoming free. I’m terrified of death, I want to live, I’d live for a few hundred years if I could, I love life, but I am more terrified to live life as a coward.

Another difference here is I think a police murder doesn’t mean the police are an unstoppable, omnipresent force, I don’t mistake their violence for strength, I recognize our lack of retaliation as our weakness instead. The US military has been defeated countless times in the last 70+ years, I am not interested in assigning a mythology to the United States that can justify my cowardice.

But most of you do. It is easy to be a coward that way. You don’t have to do much other than shrug and go, “there’s no way we’ll win”. Not that I’m interested in whatever winning looks like to you, but creating this falsehood that the US is not defeatable is just you finding a roundabout way to go, “My fear of what happens to me matters more than the on-going suffering and deaths at the hands of the Empire I do benefit from”.

No. The US can be stopped, it can be defeated, and we can do that, but we have to start from a position of honesty. You aren’t providing an actual strategic reason, you are providing a shield to your cowardice.

You don’t have to grab a gun and go shoot someone, but you do have to put your body in front of a truck at a minimum. You do have to grab the person the cop grabs and de-arrest them. You do have to be willing to stand your ground until they move you with violence, not move you with a threat of violence.

These are things we’ve done before in our radical history, it’s only new to you, its not new to here. Anarchists have not been lined up and executed like they have been in the past. “Well, I don’t want to give them a reason to do it now”, no no, they’ll find a reason to do it, and you can either be a coward who did nothing up until that point, or you could’ve done anything that directly contributed to liberating someone, even if that someone is just you.

There are no new means to be invented for resisting. There might be, actually, but needing a new means is not prerequisite for resisting, especially when there are still worthwhile tactics. There are new things to be invented to counter surveillance and certain technologies, sure, but there are a lot of means of resisting that are tried and true and we simply have to do them rather than pull every reason under the sun as to why we can’t.

Bolivia showed how to resist fascism in a way that didn’t require the oh-so-scary pick up your guns and shoot, rather it showed incredible examples of your preferred non-violent direction action, but because it was NVDA with actual risk, still it is too much for you and that’s what this comes down to.

It is about taking a risk and if you can’t take a risk, then just go submit all ready and stop taking up our oxygen. Your complaints of “this is illegal” are frankly exhausting and your questioning of what to do now equally so. I could give a fuck less about your theoretical self-victimization when the victims are all ready here and have long been. The blue prints are all ready out there, we must simply find a willingness to disrupt the entirety of our life, at risk of ourselves, but the reward is every bit worth it.