I haven't read the full story yet but I wonder if this is a person who right-wing dipshits might do violence in the event of a Trump loss:

From a threat perspective, far right extremism and white supremacists tops the charts in the developed world today, usually in the joint "lead" with Islamist terrorists. I posted some links to this earlier in a reply to Inso0.

I don't think there is any utility in referring to them as "conservatives" or "Trump supporters". Far-wing extremists are their own thing. What we can note, is that Trump is generally a popular figure in these circles. But it is not healthy to use this as a condemnation of political support for Trump, that will lead to an unwillingness to take the threat seriously. The political desire to interpret this as extremism among more mainstream supporters is both unfortunate and dangerous. It's unfortunate because it will lead to a useless risk assessment, and it is dangerous because it actually normalizes the extremism.

It is also not a contest. Noting the threat from far right extremism does not mean one should ignore left-wing extremism. But left-wing terrorism has been largely dead since the 80s and early 90s in the developed world. Right now it simply does not exist on the same scale as far-right extremism in terms of capacity, willingness to carry out or number of attacks. We should definitely learn from those days however. Left-wing terrorist groups from the early 60s to the early 90s were easily some of the most dangerous groups to have operated in the developed world. I myself see a rise in aggressive rhetoric and an acceptance of violent rhetoric in certain left-wing sub-cultures (but I obviously have no data-material to go by). We might very well see the rise of left-wing extremism and terrorism in the coming years.

You are also mistaken that this should be looked at as only lone wolves. What we see these days that even the lone attackers are typically connected to social media sub-cultures, where we see that more organized groups actively work to influence the culture. Attacks are often organized or planned online, attackers use streams or are active on social media as events unfold and there are many supporters who actively encourage these activities.

A good case study is the attack and killing of law enforcement officers in May, 2020 by individuals from the Boogalo-movement. It would be remiss to look at that as "just two people". Their interaction prior to and during the events with the online subculture is vital to understand, assess and predict these threats correctly.

While this is of course a "likely" threat scenario, it's probably not the worst one. Both these two have ample security details and a professional apparatus around them that handle security. Since they are already the targets of all kinds of threats, you already have the resources to handle it.

I'm not saying it should be ignored, this is without a doubt an active threat that must be taken seriously. What I'm saying is that I suspect the more dangerous scenario is groups or individuals who start targeting people and institutions without such security around them.

Apples and oranges. There's a clear and present danger that far left extremists could cause a breakdown in civil order in poor, high-crime communities, resulting in deaths, violence, destruction and fear for the people living in those communities.

Sounds pretty close to what the regular old system has produced already.

Oh, right, a little foul language is more actionable than the absurd lie that Charlottesville was left wing violence.

You owe me a tee up. But seriously, if the poor blacks who live in those communities want to take that gambit, it's their call. It's really not the call for the whites who don't populate those communities but populate the radical left to make.

What do you think were the reasons underlying the issue when white people had basically a monopoly on crime back in the day? Just re-classifying them as temporarily not-white doesn't count

Do you really not believe (minority/poor)communities can be/have been greatly affected by forces almost entirely out of their control(i.e. the majority in power)?
We readily recognize those kinda dynamics all over the world in addition to times in the past here. The argument from the other side at this point is essentially--but we fixed it already(now move over please I'm trying to wave this giant confederate flag ) when just a quick look around shows that to be obv false.

Are there even any examples of say a minority/oppressed people rising up to assert their rights where they were making the wrong read of the situation and the people in power actually were treating them equally? These kinda situations have been happening repeatedly thru history--and it's Always the people in power who had ample opportunity to head it off by simply being fair.

I basically agree with what you're saying/implying. I'd even go so far as saying that purely peaceful protests have lost much of their punch and MLK probably would have taken a more disruptive tack today. But there's a world of difference between that sort of disruption and planned outright confrontation with the police like we see from these mostly white sjws and anarchists. The likely outcome with that is just what's going on in the NW: after 100+ days of poking the fascist police they're finally getting the coveted Alinsky reaction only to find their community could care less as the police release 100+ days of irritation and beat the crap out of them on a nightly basis. Like I said, if they want to crap in their own sandbox, fine, it's their call. But if things blow up in some of these cities the agitators will just head back to the 'burbs leaving the community to clean up their mess. Not fine.

Hmm, let's see about those drunk, fat MAGA guys with hunting rifles in Michigan: FBI arrests 6 who were training with firearms and explosives and planning to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in a "violent overthrow of the government"

LOL Inso0, LOL Smudger, leaving monuments to wrongness and ignorance in every single post they make

WHAT ABOUT ANTIFA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE GOT HIM, BOYS!

Would you revise this post or stand by it?

This just goes to show how right he was.

Oh, I'll definitely stand by it.

Still, don't let me stand in the way of you speculating on whatever delusions of grandeur you had in mind for these bros in Michigan. Feel free to tell me how it would've turned out.

In other news, as we speak we're literally in the process of boarding up some businesses ahead of the continued riots slated for tonight here in Milwaukee. Last night the mob only made it about a block to the west of this location. Lots of broken windows and looting. They'll be back tonight for more.

Inso0's boarding crews, on the scene. They're framing it in first and securing to the brick instead of ****ing up the aluminum, if you're wondering about the WIP shot.

LOL

Before: "fat drunk idiots with hunting rifles outside Great Clips"
After: "Well plotting domestic terrorism is actually not a big deal just like I said before"

Dripping idiocy from every post. And he's proud of it!

Is this the 'if they had stopped 9/11 before it happened ..it was never a true threat.. prove otherwise', defense?

Potentially inconveniencing one politician for a few days vs threatening the ongoing livelihood of your supposed friends and neighbors. If I have to pick one, sign me up for the governor locked in a basement. Take Trump, too, while you're at it. Whatever keeps him off Twitter.

It's amazing that we're at the point where "breaking a window in a Walmart is worse than kidnapping and murdering a Dem Governor" is an actual take that right wingers have.

Counterpoint: "Property is more valuable than people who don't vote R" is not exactly a new principle on the right

Did I miss the murder part of the plot? Why bother with kidnapping if murder was the plan?

This may come as a shock to you, but not every business is a Walmart with infinite resources. The building in the photo above is owned by a nice old lady who employs 30+ people and if her store were to be looted and destroyed, would result in significant economic hardship for everyone involved.

Most insurance policies don't cover SJW attacks under the Act of God clause.

uhhhh, this is so TRUE!

(ofc businesses ARE covered by terrorism clauses which have become close to mandatory since 9/11)

No, they are not mandatory, and I'd venture to say very few corporate citizens of Midwest cities are rocking terrorism riders on their insurance policies.

If my office were more organized, I'd find an old policy where we did have it. It's not free, and we dropped ours about 4 years ago.

lol....it's not free. All my businesses have the terrorism rider at less than $40/yr.

Your venture... is probably off the mark.

Plans that include storming a government building with guns and kill people, using a bomb to kill the governor or kidnap the governor is not "political inconvenience".

"Locked in a basement"? What do you think this is, a Scooby Doo episode?

If that is the limit of the judgment you are willing to pass, there are some more fitting forums out there in the world for you, which I will refrain from naming here.

Great, well out of curiosity I looked at the most recent proposal with Terrorism on it and ours was about 10 times that for just one of the property holding businesses. It's cheap, but not free. You might not bother to pick $450 off the ground, but I do.



Four years ago would've been absurd to waste the money. I wonder what the new rates will be once SJW riots become the nightly norm.