> Thus the implication seems quite clear - rise up and murder a leader if you want to be heard (then and now).
(OP here). The other implication is use the rules of the system first. Yeah the system is rigged, there are lobbyists and special interests, and propaganda at work. But that is preferable to violence in the streets.
> rise up and murder a leader if you want to be heard (then and now).
The point about the violence is that large protests as an effective tool to make the government listen or do anything are not effective in US, but are effective in Romania, for example, and the reason is that there is a collective memory of relatively recent past of what had happened there.
Another point is that the threat of violence has to be implied or imminent. There might be another way to create that belief than killing a leader.
(OP here). The other implication is use the rules of the system first. Yeah the system is rigged, there are lobbyists and special interests, and propaganda at work. But that is preferable to violence in the streets.
> rise up and murder a leader if you want to be heard (then and now).
The point about the violence is that large protests as an effective tool to make the government listen or do anything are not effective in US, but are effective in Romania, for example, and the reason is that there is a collective memory of relatively recent past of what had happened there.
Another point is that the threat of violence has to be implied or imminent. There might be another way to create that belief than killing a leader.