Those who follow the rapid decline of the USA are hearing about "looting" or looting. They are portrayed as an anti – political act, without however realizing that if everyone talks about it and there is debate around them, they have already become political acts .
To understand this, you have to observe a little what the leader of any group says to his. He says it in many ways, he says it more or less explicitly, sometimes in a sublimated way (when the head of state visits the armed forces, for example), but in the end the first statement of any political leader is always that: with me in charge, you are safe. Or if you prefer, "I will protect you".
For this reason, Trump needs to be shown that he is a law and order president, and that he sends soldiers to patrol the streets. If you want to remain a leader, you must tell your parents that you will protect them. And then you have to do it.
In this sense, the continuation of the looting is a political message: "you are not able to protect yours" also means "as a leader you are worth nothing". It means that the leader has failed in the first of his tasks.
So yes, you can masturbate as much as you want, but large-scale looting is a political act, all right. And that's why it occupies all the newspapers and all political commentators talk about it.
Then come those intellectuals who continue to claim that the protest is illegitimate if it is violent. Interesting speculation, but the goal of a protest is not to be legitimate , it is to be effective .
To mark the protest as illegitimate is to mark it as limestone . Okay, a violent protest is limestone . And sticazzi we write it?
There have been protests in the past (generally peaceful, but also not) that have been defined as legitimate , and therefore the government has come down to negotiate and made the required reforms. Very well.
But now let's talk about this planet: do you really think that Trump will ever go down to negotiate, and that he will then do all the reforms that serve to make the police less violent and society less racist? Trump? With your electorate?
It will NEVER do it.
But if we already know that Trump will NEVER go down to negotiate with those who protest, we already know that it is useless to keep the protest on legitimacy tracks. At that point, since American Negroes can live without fear of being killed randomly only if Trump is defeated, devastating objects and buildings is a reasonable strategy. For two reasons.
- Front extension. If the Americans perceived a difference between material goods and human life, the president could say "I focus on saving your life, and then I will compensate you for the damage." But as wealth is as valuable as life to Americans, devastating stores has the same value as killing. This, however, extends the front enormously, because the American army does NOT have enough men to defend EVERY property of value.
- Force multiplier. Let's be clear, we do not know Manhattan for people. We don't know it for philosophers, for artists, for works of art. Manhattan is known for the shops, that is, for the buildings, and for the luxury goods, that is, for products that are easy to replace after all. As a result, burning Manhattan stores in the media has the same effect as killing all of its inhabitants. The brand of the companies, if burned, is a multiplier of remarkable strength.
- Exposure. "No looting, no news". A simple demonstration today ends with the usual debate between "we are a million" and "sixteen for the police headquarters". If, on the other hand, you destroy the shops in a neighborhood, the police headquarters cannot say anything. Shops are burned. End. Those who devised media techniques to diminish the demonstrations forced the demonstrators to escalate . The devastation cannot be mediated .
- Mistrust in leaders. If Trump can't stop the devastation, he's in serious trouble. It is noticeable when he tries to put the blame on others. But if the devastation continues, the problem becomes serious. Trump accused the mayor of New York of cowardice, saying that if he doesn't move he will think about it. If Di Blasio said to him tomorrow "well, genius, your time to shine has come, go ahead", Trump would be in trouble. Because a massacre of niggers in new york is exactly what Trump does NOT want.
In fact, the protesters still have all the chances in the world, while those who have to defend a too large front still find themselves losing the initiative. This is the reason why urban guerrilla warfare is one of the toughest ever. And I want to point out that the demonstrators so far have not used firearms. Which means one thing: they still have room to climb, while the army has firearms in their hands. If the demonstrators climb with weapons, the army CANNOT climb with artillery or tanks, which would devastate the city even more. The use of the army is a fake threat, and sooner or later the demonstrators will notice.
The real problem, and Trump's mistake, was precisely to reduce everything to the use of force. Because now he MUST use force, and he MUST show that the USA, but all he doesn't want is a battle, let alone want more victims of color.
In practice, Trump tries to put out a revolt against the brutal methods of the police, which have emerged despite attempts by the police to hide them , introducing even more brutality, as well as putting themselves in the position of having to show it to the public .
I don't think this affair, unless other catastrophic mistakes, can benefit Trump. After all, immediately after a protest against the repression of the Hong Kong protests, Trump calling for army and force on protesters is all they wanted in Beijing.
Who knows how much Beijing would have paid for a policeman who badly killed a negro, in front of the cameras, during the clashes in Hong Kong and the Trump protests