Gen alpha? The oldest gen a just started high school. So yeah I hope those voting gen a kids really get what they deserve.
I also have to speak on the matter of gen z. As an older gen z male (old enough that under current rules I can’t be drafted) I know the data holds that my demografic swung right in 2024. Not by as much as some act. But substantially enough to not ignore it. But I don’t know very many right wingers in my age group, so its hard to feel like something wasn’t missed. I would believe it if someone said that people my age were so far left that they refused to vote blue and that cost the election, but I can’t find any evidence of that.turnout was a bit lower generation wide, but not enough among men to make the argument that only the right wing men voted, unless there was a considerable surge among right wing youth turnout as well as a duo in turnout on the left for the same demographic.
But now I’m rambling. Either way, its hard not to see millenials turning on us as a betrayal even if we statistically deserve it. Growing up and seeing all the articles where millenials ruined this or that and always being able to clearly see that the fault was not on the young adults but the society and industries, if there was even anything wrong with the change anyway. And I think everyone felt that way, not just those of us who were left leaning.
And how I’ve had to drag some of the millenials I’ve known to see reason on trans issues and how they say the same things about me that people my parents age said about them it just really sinks in how cyclclical it all is and how no one tries to communicate on a level that actually breeds conversation. The brain sets as neroplasticity fades and now I am approximately who I will always be. And I hope I can look at gen alpha when they become adults and understand them, or at least try.
It seems too easy to me to make such a clear narrative. And one could argue the same about pacifists being a psyop. The media broadly prefers pacifists, as do most educational establishments. I think there is truth to what you are saying, that often people in groups are pushed to violent action by provocateurs. This justifies crackdowns and surveillance, as well as to smear them. However peaceful actions do tend to lack any ability to effect change against a rigid structure, especially one willing to use violence even against those who do not.
The ideal for those who want to control is to have small groups commit reprehensible acts on relatively small scales and on targets that seem almost unrelated to their cause, just general terrorism, while the mainstream versions of those movements condemn any violence at all, and can easily be ignored or squashed when they get too large.
Successful change against repression of any kind has always involved a threat to the power base, or the power itself. Even nonviolent action against structures that give power generally need to be defended from violent repressiion, resulting in the end with violence from both sides. Strikes were met with crackdowns which had to be met with resistance to be taken seriously. The stonewall riots helped show that a repressed community would not simply lay down forever.
Yes, calls to violence should be met with suspicion, but pacifism is the absolute rejection of violence, and the romance of such a pure position is a tool of oppression used when it is useful to do so. Those who wish to do good will often search for ways to do good without compromising on their other values, while those who wish simply to control will do whatever best maintains control.
This does not mean that we should simply do the most expedient thing to gain power and allow the good to come later, but that we must be realistic when examining our options and not let our values cause us to lose. On the other hand, our values lend us our strength by being our point to rally on. When what we want is a good for all we will have more support than opposition, and without that we cannot win and any victory would be hollow.