ASIO director-general Mike Burgess says Australia’s terror-level threat has been raised to “probable” due to a rising mix of ideologies where more people think “violence is permissible”.
What an asinine phrasing. Basically everyone except the Jains think that violence is permissible. Mike Burgess certainly thinks it is.
Where people disagree is over when, the degree, by whom, and to whom. This gross liberal idea what when the cops throw a climate protestor to the ground and pepper spray them, that is wholesome non violence. But if a climate protestor throws a brick through a window that is scary, evil, bad violence is part of how society stays so broken and alienating.
I’m probably much more towards the non violence spectrum than your average person. For instance it absolutely disgusts me that we permit police torture implements that would be illegal in war. Your average person is quite bullish on those, and that police are allowed to escalate violence by upgrading charges through resisting arrest. So don’t take this as an endorsement of violence against people. Just that if we ignore how violent the status quo is we don’t get to act surprised when it produced violent resistance, even if most of those people want something much worse.
Violence of the state: OK Economic violence of corporations: OK Violence of extremist groups whose interest aligns with capital: OK Minority groups looking to defend themselves and enact change: hold on there, buddy, you just might be doing a terrorism
Eh, while that hypocrisy is real, your post didn’t really describe the situation. When it comes to ‘terrorism’, in the past few years and much of that article, ASIO have consistently been talking about neo-Nazism (particularly the NSN). Neo-Nazis are not anti-capitalist nor a minority group defending themselves (they are a clear aggressor). And of course they’re bad for liberal democracy/capitalism and too foolish/idealistic to work alongside capital like 1920s fascists, instead desperately resorting to lone-wolf terror acts (to try and incite a nonsense ‘race war’), so yes, they’re being readily branded as terrorists, and correctly - they are explicitly aiming to promote terror.
As for the other cases being discussed like the Wakeley stabbing, I don’t see how that’s in the self-defense of a minority group. As far as I’ve seen, they’re not attacking fascists or CEOs, or trying to enact systematic change. There’s right ways to do political violence or self-defense, and these cases don’t seem to be them them.
“This is the new thing, people will go to violence with little or no warning, and they [have] little or no planning in some of these that I’ve talked about,” he said.
Two spaces at the end of a line__
followed by hitting the enter key__
Will give you the formatting you were looking for. 👍Thank you, all fixed now
due to a rising mix of ideologies where more people think “violence is permissible”.
Ah yes, the ideologies of “I want to murder all the minorities” and “I will stop that person from murdering all the minorities(including myself)” are actually the same because both involve violence
So what are lawmakers doing about social media algorithms? Age restrictions?
There seems to be very little effort on the part of at least one major party to address social cohesion issues while the other major party is being torn apart over it. Angry people vote based on culture wars, angry people don’t look at policy or ideology
They changed the colour of the terror warning.
“Go from yellow alert to red alert!”
“Are you sure? It will mean changing the bulb in the sign.”
Says the dude who outsources his violence.
