Some thoughts: The great paradox of 1/6 is that so much of the planning happened out in the open (both in the immediate run-up and over the past 4+ years), which actually made it less effective. There were too many disparate and undisciplined groups, effectively tourists.

This part of Trumpism will continue. To the extent the Trump family is able to operate in the open, they will become the Grateful Dead of right-wing politics, which Trump rallies already embody, and followers will go on tour, chanting "Lock Her Up" for the coming decades.
The key question is whether the Far Right will break from this. Some indications show that Trump's efforts at self-preservation by weak denunciation will fuel a break and also further a pervasive "stabbed-in-the-back" narrative that the Far Right uses everywhere.
What made 1/6 more effective was the obvious underpreparation by the Capitol police, in coordination with DOJ and DOD. Some indiv officers assented but some did their job a little too effectively--incl. by shooting the woman in the bldg as much as not shooting entrants at first.
It's clear that some people entered the Capitol with the intent to kidnap/lynch specific members of Congress (you can figure out who), and some of those people basically fantasized about doing that for the likes while live-streaming (insert analogy to Zetas/ISIS/whatevs).
Ultimately, many of the known key leaders of the Far Right were in the Capitol. There is no parallel on the Left, in part because of aversion to hierarchy means we don't have celebrity leaders in the same way (though one celeb was clearly a target on 1/6).
But these leaders also weren't quite in control of what was happening in part because they were always hedging their bets. Every action is a fundraising opportunity until the next one, and the dog catching the car problem is real for ppl w/ no political strategy.
Given all the "non-movement" arguments happening in my little corner of the too-online Left lately, it's clear that the disciplined revolutionary cadre of the Right (@kathleen_belew's subject matter) have been a victim of their own success/popularity.
They're torn b/c their politics thrive in the online environment w/ the full transformation of politics into meme-ification & trolling, but they also can't easily translate that success into anything more than endless stochastic white violence, which is where they started anyway.
The Far Right hasn't reached the status of non-movement yet, to the degree the positive valence of that term applies to the 1000s of otherwise un- or loosely organized people who filled the streets over last summer and engaged in radical and courageous tactics.
But it also doesn't need to because its minimum goal is also the baseline operation of US institutions and governance (ie, the rule of capital through racialized structural disadvantage).

More from For later read

How I created content in 2020

A thread...

Back in Aug 2016, I started creating content to share my experiences as an entrepreneur.
Over 3 years I had put out 1,200+ hours of content - posting every week without


Little did I know that something I started almost 4 years back would give my life an entirely new direction.

At the end of 2019, my biggest platform was LinkedIn with ~700K followers.

In Jan 2020, I decided to build a team that would help me with the content.

I ran a month long recruitment drive to hire a team of interns.

It comprised 4 detailed rounds - starting with my loved 20 questions, then an assignment, then a WhatsApp video round and finally F2F.

Through 1,200+ applications, I finally selected 6 profiles, starting March.

I am a firm believer in @peterthiel's one task, one person philosophy
So the team was structured such that everyone was responsible for ONLY one task

1. Content ideas
2. Videography
3. Video editing
4. LinkedIn (+TikTok) distribution
5. FB+IG distribution
6. YouTube distribution
Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵

Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.

Rachel Riley is listed as patron.
https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0


SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks

Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut

Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/


Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/

BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/

The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/

Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/

You May Also Like