Anti-government extremism is not one coherent ideology or organisation. It can encompass sovereign citizens, conspiracy theorists and others who come to see government institutions as fundamentally corrupt, illegitimate or actively working against ordinary citizens.
(emphasis mine) shit cuz they’re onto me :p
Our research points towards an approach known as procedural justice. “Procedurally just” governance is about how governments exercise their authority. It means treating citizens with respect, making decisions fairly and without bias to prevent benefiting one special-interest group over another, being transparent about motives for legislation or new government processes. It also means giving people meaningful opportunities to have their voices heard.
Importantly, our study found that when people perceived government as more procedurally just they reported lower levels of anger and were less likely to perceive the government as illegitimate.
This relationship was evident among both conspiracy believers and non-believers. It means procedural justice shouldn’t be dismissed as merely good public relations. It potentially forms part of Australia’s strategy for preventing violent extremism.
[…]
Rather, governments need a two-track response. They need to identify and disrupt people moving towards violence. But they also need to reduce the conditions that can make that violence attractive in the first place. These include alienation, anger and a belief that public institutions exercise power without listening to people or treating them fairly and equally.
I thought this was a good and thoughtful piece to have been put out so soon after what appears to be an attempted political assassination of a politician who, near as I can tell, wanted more government transparency and accountability.
Not really a great sign of the times. With government building out some of the largest surveillance machines in the world I suspect we can conclude what the response will be. As the author highlights though, restoring trust and a sense of justice is more important to get back to a society where we feel our concerns can be dealt with non violently.
I’m a goddless commie but random killings of politicians doesn’t seem useful and has established itself as having a deathtoll potentially in the millions[1].
Incoherant rage only furthers fascist ends and I don’t think it’s a bad thing if the government tries to be less shit. Accelerationism hasn’t got a shiny track record, and at any rate Australia isn’t on the cusp of revolution waiting for our moment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand ↩︎
You’re putting words into my mouth that I didn’t even remotely say.
I never said we should go around murdering people, I never said I wanted to accelerate fascism. I kind of want to avoid both of those things actually, they’re among my main complaints with the government.
Things have needed to change for a very long time, these people have been inflicting violence on a frankly absurd scale against first nations people, immigrants, sex workers etc etc.
One politician being attacked being the trigger for “change” is insulting given the context of what they’re inflicting on the populace. They don’t care about being less shit, they just want a licence to continue brutalising the innocent without consequences.
Call it incoherent rage if you like, but I’m allowed to express frustration and anger by commenting relatively meaningless things. You can read into it more if you like but can’t someone just be upset and express a desire for real radical change without it turning into a huge debate?
I’m not having a go, chill out a little. Just discussing the article.
If you say so, but I don’t think there’s a read of your reply that comes across that way.
In that spirit, I don’t much care for the article given the way it frames all dissent as violent extremism from the far right. There’s no meaningful discussion of legitimate criticism from those of us on the left who want the government gone. We’re just lumped in with conspiracy theorists and sov-cits as “others”.
Not to mention the whole idea that they just need to do things a little different is laughable, for the reasons I’ve stated previously.