Rally, apply pressure to local politics, interfere with the workings of the government and their loyalists…
Putting up political stickers, Grafitti, sharing leaflets and more action forms to drive up costs of operations for the Trump system.
For more specific actions you could take inspiration from Palaction, who take action against Britains complicity in the Gaza genocide. https://www.palestineaction.org/
It is very much applicable.
Second, resistance doesn’t have to be a dramatic act. It can be a small act, like losing a sheet of paper, taking your time processing something, not serving someone in a restaurant. Small acts taken by thousands have big effects.
Fourth, part of the third point really, sometimes the best way to do things is right out in the open. Because no one will believe something like what you’re doing would be happening so blatantly. All good Social Engineers know this.
Five, bide your time. But be ready for opportunity when it strikes. Again, your action need not be dramatic. Just a little sand in the gears helps.
Every government needs to work. It depends on its loyalists to give it financial and organizational support in exchange for economic benefits.
So anything that interferes with the “normal” order of things is an act of resistance. Also don’t get fooled into the idea, that you will resist once things reach a certain threshold. By then you will feel what needs to be done to be way to big for your own abilities, since you never trained and tried to do anything.
Start with something easy like putting up political stickers around your town. That sounds easy in concept, but you already will train yourself to be brazen, but also on alert if someone politically opposed to you might want to challenge you verbally or attack you physically. You life close to an amazon warehouse? Why not skip a green phase, when the delivery trucks are lined up behind you?
Speaking of Amazon, we see with the Resistance for Palestine, that Boycotts work. Making a point of not buying products from companies that support the Israeli regime can be expanded to also making a point of not buying into the Trump government.
Singling out events without looking what happened before and after. Seems familiar in the context of Israel…
China’s Ambassador Zhang Jun said that the most urgent action the Council should take is calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, in line with the wishes of the UN General Assembly and the UN Secretary-General. Ambassador Zhang Jun, Permanent Representative of China, addressing the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. United Nations Ambassador Zhang Jun, Permanent Representative of China, addressing the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question.
He said the Council had dragged its feet and wasted too much time in this regard.
With a view to safeguarding the UN Charter and the “dignity” of the Council, together with the view of Arab States, China therefore voted against the US draft.
He pointed to the new draft resolution from the 10 elected Council members now circulating: “This draft is clear on the issue of a ceasefire and is in line with the correct direction of the Council action and is of great relevance. China supports this draft.”
From the ceasefire resolution that was passed three days later, note with the US abstaining to vote and immediately lying about the binding character of the resolution to then continue arm Israel with billions worth of bombs to murder tens of thousands more Palestinians.
A US-proposed draft to end the war in Gaza was vetoed by permanent Council members China and Russia, in a vote of 11 favour to three against (Algeria, China, Russia) and one abstention (Guyana)
Several ambassadors voiced their support for a new draft proposed by the “E-10” group of non-permanent Council members, which calls for an immediate ceasefire
The vetoed draft would have made imperative an immediate and sustained ceasefire in Gaza, with an “urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance” to all civilians and lifting “all barriers” to delivering aid
Council members disagreed over elements of the draft, and some highlighted glaring exclusions despite having raised multiple concerns with the US during negotiations
Ambassadors largely supported swift action to bring food and lifesaving aid at scale into Gaza, where concerns of famine grew as Israel continues to block and slow walk shipments into the besieged enclave
Some Council members called for pursuing the two-State solution to the ongoing conflict
Israel’s ambassador was invited to speak, calling the draft’s failure to pass and condemn Hamas “a stain that will never be forgotten”
You are trying to frame not licking Netanyahus and the US boots as they commit a genocide as opposing a ceasefire, when in fact it was about demanding a ceasefire in line with the realities on the ground.
China passed a Ceasefire SC resolution in March 2024, when you claimed they vetoed against it. The opposite of what you claimed happened.
Stop spreading lies.
Gaza: Security Council passes resolution demanding ‘an immediate ceasefire’ during Ramadan https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147931
There is 1.4 Billion people in China. Chinese internet firms are reaching a larger audience in China, than all the people living in North America and Europe.
For the longest time in the EU streaming was not considered illegal on the users end, as long as he is not collecting a big enough part of the file, wheras downloading was illegal already.
And we keep the government out of finding scientific truths for good reasons. Independence of science is crucial. Also scientific trith is not absolute. No scientist worth his salt will say “x is true and y is false”. They would say “we have strong evidence to support x and we have strong evidence that y is not the case under all tested circumstances.”
Courts move slow and only in acvordance with the lae. For instance in my country politics decided to define Afghanistan as a secure country of origin by law, to make it impossible for people to seek Asylum from there. That was the legislative opinion of “fact”. And that also was while the Taliban was retaking large swaths of the country and months later took full control. Iirc. it was only stopped when the constitutional court decided much later, that clearly this is wrong.
I am not against fact checking. But if you mandate it by law, you must observe the adherence to the law. And for that you ultimately need to grant the government the definition of what is true and what is not, simply in order to measure the adherence to the law by.
No, it is not the slippery slope fallacy. If you create an instrumemt that obligates fact checking, you have to give someone authority to define what are facts and what arent. And as this is obligatory by law, these fact checkers are subject to supervision or are directly part of the government.
So now the government gets to decide what are facts and what are not. Which can easily be abused. Especially as disinformation through so called fact checkers can move as fast as any other disinformarion.
So at the very least you need to create a sanction regime, e.g. criminal punishment for the abuse of the fact checking, as well as a right for people to have the fact checking checked and challenged, if they think it spreads lies against them. This way you can have it analysed by courts, as the most neutral authority in a state of law.
I dont get how people in Europe, where i live by the way, especially with the experience of Mussolini, Hitler and Franco fascism, as well as all the Warsaw pact authoritarianism, GDR surveillance, red scare policies in the Western countries during cold war, etc. are just treating this so lightly.
Authoritarian regimes based on lies and forbidding the truth are not some abstract. They are both an extensive reality of the recent past as well as looking at Orban, Melloni, Wilders, Merz and many others they are reemerging right now.
So if the US would make obligatory fact checking under a Trump administration. How would you solve that problem?
In the end it always boils down to the current administration getting to decide what the facts and what the disinformation is.
This is easily abusable and for instance Goerge Orwell predicted such problems with the “Ministry of Truth” in his book 1984.
Who decides what reality is?
You give authority to define “facts” to a fact checking institution. That institution may not be sufficiently independent. Because of meddling the institution spreads lies under the claim they would be facts and declares actual facts as lies.
Just think about a fact checking under the authority of Trump, Musk, Zuckerberg, AIPAC…
You might overestimate the statistical prowess and care to establish good proccesses in HR.
I said “start with”. Which also is consistent with point 2, that it does not have to be the grand act of plotting a political execution, robbing the army of their weapons and other activities requiring strong dedication and risk taking.
Also do you expect people on an internet forum to recommend you specific actions that could be considered illegal, for which they could also get in trouble?