We've seen it with the George Floyd riots, the fake (actually done by antifa) insurrection at the Capitol, the crazy opposition to Trump during his presidency etc.
None of these were organic things, they were all planned out and pushed by the elite. The elites were going to start riots no matter what and they chose the George Floyd incident to do it.
The elites take events that happen, or that they make happen, then they put the full mainstream media and uniparty machine into overdrive and only then, once the ball is rolling with paid agitators, do normie people start to engage and go along.
No normie type of people would've rioted over Floyd if it wasn't for this mainstream machine telling them it was ok first. To me, it seems most people are very deferential to authority, they lack imagination to think outside of narratives given to them.
Humans, on average, are much more controllable than we are led to believe and the elites love to make people think they are acting spontaneously when, in reality, they are just playing out a script designed for them.
And, yes, the same can definitely apply to people on the right, that's why if it seems like a civil war is starting it will be very important to evaluate the situation before just jumping in. Their main goal is to get everyone at each other's throats so that the real criminals can slink away unnoticed.
The last 'slave' slave in america, like stereotypical chattel slavery slave, was freed in 1942.
I've participated in politically motivated violence and disorder, including organising, promoting and training.
I've known people killed, seen people go to prison, known people hospitalised, been surveilled by cops and had affiliated groups infiltrated by undercover cops who were eventually outed.
I've been arrested a couple of times and even been in a televised police chase where I escaped!
So I know it does happen.
a) PROTEST', verb [Latin protestor; pro and testor, to affirm it.] aka the ignorant many are affirming whatever the parasitic few are suggesting them; no matter if the choose to be for (want) or against it (not want). Why? Because both wanting or not wanting suggested information tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable inspiration.
Example...the few suggest "abortion"; the many consent by choosing to want or not want it; then the few rebrand the resulting conflict of reason into pro-life (want) vs pro-choice (not want); which keeps both sides fighting each other; allows the few making the suggestions to control both sides and protect and fuel abortions.
The suggestion "abortion" tempts others to want or not want it; while ignoring the need to sustain life.
b) the lack of will to change anything is based on willingly ignoring being within constant change aka living within the process of dying aka temporary within ongoing aka resistance within velocity aka growth within loss.
To choose want (suggested information) over need (perceivable inspiration) represents ones ignorance of perceivable reality for the suggested fiction by others. Once consented to any suggestion; those suggesting it can then define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the meaning thereof; while all those consenting to want or not want it are busy reasoning (want versus not want) against each other about the meaning of it.
Ignores being choice within perceivable balance (left/right). Whenever one chooses to go left it implies coming from right and vice versa. There's no conflict within perceivable balance (need/want) unless ignored for suggested imbalance (want vs not want; true vs false; left vs right; believing vs not believing; good vs evil; pop vs rock; fanta vs sprite; nationalism vs internationalism; vaxxed vs unvaxxed; trump vs biden; on vs off; poor vs rich and so on.
What if there's no crime under the laws of nature? What if the many first would have to ignore the laws of nature for the suggested laws of men by the few; which then allows the few to define what crime represents?