i see we have now reached the “we cannot hold a parliamentary session to oppose the assumption of emergency powers because we have declared an emergency” stage of the pandemic.
the attentive have likely seen this coming for some time.
remember when some broken-record internet cat told you that such powers, once grabbed, are not willingly returned? well this is what that looks like.
this really starts go go pretty fast at the end, doesn’t it?
a pro tip: when the state needs to tell the citizens not to fear the police presence, it’s probably the government that’s scaring them.
the “police operations” that appear planned look likely to be the first actual violence of these protests.
one might go so far as to ask some pointed questions about just who constitutes the menace to public safety these days…
perhaps it’s “using the fact of having grabbed power as a justification for having grabbed power.”
that can make people nervous. (and quite justifiably so)
hard to see how THAT could be abused…
never mind that there has been no danger and that the people at the protests would probably invite the MP’s on both sides of the issue in for pancakes and a civil chat if any of them asked.
such salients will be ignored in the pretexts for the use of usurped exigent powers to seize bank accounts, arrest people for “mischief,” and prevent official debate on whether such powers should even be in place.
it is not protests preventing the rightful assembly of government, it is a faction within the government itself using a “police operation” to do so as a means to sidestep accountability.
they are branding dissent as terrorism and circumventing parliamentary oversight while the round up and jail peaceful dissidents who asked for their lives and personal autonomy back.
this represents severe ethical inversion.
you may agree with the truckers or disagree. that is your right and your prerogative. but do you want to live in a world where the state gets to decide who gets to speak and who gets to protest?
do you want a government sanctioned overton window imposed by force?
because that seems a precarious basis for a civil society.
open box with crowbar inside
i see we have now reached the “we cannot hold a parliamentary session to oppose the assumption of emergency powers because we have declared an emergency” stage of the pandemic.
the attentive have likely seen this coming for some time.
remember when some broken-record internet cat told you that such powers, once grabbed, are not willingly returned? well this is what that looks like.
this really starts go go pretty fast at the end, doesn’t it?
a pro tip: when the state needs to tell the citizens not to fear the police presence, it’s probably the government that’s scaring them.
the “police operations” that appear planned look likely to be the first actual violence of these protests.
one might go so far as to ask some pointed questions about just who constitutes the menace to public safety these days…
perhaps it’s “using the fact of having grabbed power as a justification for having grabbed power.”
that can make people nervous. (and quite justifiably so)
hard to see how THAT could be abused…
never mind that there has been no danger and that the people at the protests would probably invite the MP’s on both sides of the issue in for pancakes and a civil chat if any of them asked.
such salients will be ignored in the pretexts for the use of usurped exigent powers to seize bank accounts, arrest people for “mischief,” and prevent official debate on whether such powers should even be in place.
it is not protests preventing the rightful assembly of government, it is a faction within the government itself using a “police operation” to do so as a means to sidestep accountability.
they are branding dissent as terrorism and circumventing parliamentary oversight while the round up and jail peaceful dissidents who asked for their lives and personal autonomy back.
this represents severe ethical inversion.
you may agree with the truckers or disagree. that is your right and your prerogative. but do you want to live in a world where the state gets to decide who gets to speak and who gets to protest?
do you want a government sanctioned overton window imposed by force?
because that seems a precarious basis for a civil society.
this is the part where fraud fails and only the fist remains. you cannot convince, you cannot fool, and so you force.
but it may not be as easy as it looks, and such actions equal and opposite reactions.
but they are certainly gearing up for war against their own people. they are bringing in the scabs and the collaborators to do the dirty-work.
the rules have become arbitrary and unaccountable. requests for freedom are being met with waves of authoritarian response.
quite a departure from some past positions…
but such departures do not always go as planned…
italy also seems to be getting back to the roots of the old school fasciati.
and so again we see the use of “having imposed a rule” as the means to protect the rule from challenge.
expect a lot of this. this is how the purges start.
if you can outlaw political disagreement, you’re setting up a despotism.
they will other, attack, exclude, persecute, and become ever more violent and strident.
it does not get better from here and the speed with which it gets worse will grow ever faster.
if this looks like “representative government” to you, you’re not likely to enjoy the next act of this play.
this production has been put on many times before, and unless the audience gets involved, the final acts always look the same.