Space and (state) Power, thoughts on April 19
Before my thoughts on April 19 some housekeeping, housekeeping keeps the household operating, so indulge us with your attention.
Want to come to our meet up online (in person events coming soon) click the ABOVE LINK!
We are 100% reader funded and two and half feminists run, so give, share, support, new fundraiser launching after finals 😸
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR PODCAST IT IS SO GOOD, ESPECIALLY THIS WEEK!
Our virtual townsquare now has a make over (Lo had to do code), we can call it the
Fake (less fake and less fascist) book— come play. CLICK it go ahead.
ON TO THE GOOD STUFF, MY ESSAY ON WHAT YOU SHOULD DO ON APRIL 19— Space and power and you!
As AF/S focuses on space as it relates to urbanism, protest in public spaces and the First Amendment are essential parts of its coverage. I know other urbanism media projects do not cover this area; that’s because they are beholden to the market and authoritarians—this publication is independent.
The surging media coverage concerning the Insurrection Act is conspicuously suspicious following months of relative silence on matters of electoral integrity and on civil actions, such as the massive April 5 demonstrations that brought out 5 million Americans across the nation.
Invoking the Insurrection Act has always been a part of Project 2025. And waving the Insurrection Act like a cocked gun has been a part of Trump’s repertoire for quite a bit of time, that’s not saying he won’t do it, but this brand new from the media…and anyone with more than two print magazine subscriptions—get out of here…
The Heritage Foundation shaped Project 2025 blueprint and the organization publicly and explicitly explained in much detail in 2019, 2020, and 2023, about leveraging it as a tool to quell civil disturbances.
“Project 2025 also envisions expanded use of the Insurrection Act of 1807, which authorizes the president to use the military for domestic law enforcement purposes under rare, extreme circumstances.” Boston Review, July 2024
Project 2025 's ambiguous and at the same time incredulous definition of “unrest” raises critical questions about its subjective application of state power. YET, this plan is not new.
Its recent amplification in media discourse—framed as emergent news rather than a long-standing strategic priority—suggests a deliberate narrative deployment —a manipulation.
Such timing is striking, given its potential to influence public perception ahead of key electoral milestones (e.g., October 2024)—when I feel it would have been quite a bit more useful.
If I wasn’t clear in the above graphs, my following thoughts are not about whether Trump would or wouldn’t do XYZ. It’s about why this narrative is being pushed NOW AND it is definitely fear-mongering shaped to me.
Deconstructing Fear-Based Narratives: Actors and Incentives
The heightened focus on the Insurrection Act aligns with two distinct ideological factions, each leveraging fear for divergent ends:
1. Authoritarian-Aligned Elites: This cohort, characterized by significant financial and institutional capital. It is motivated to stop future collective mobilization like April 5 events. Their emphasis on “order” and preemptive control reflects a broader strategy to consolidate power by pathologizing dissent and criminalizing protests.
2. Accelerationist Movements: This happy band of brothers was NOT happy about the success of April 5. This movement believes that systemic collapse is a prerequisite for revolutionary change. They have a strong opposition to incremental reform—including state-led relief efforts —this stems from a belief that sustained oppression is necessary to catalyze mass uprising. This aligns with Marxist critiques of reformism, albeit taken to an extreme that rejects pragmatic coalition-building especially with institutional entities like the Democratic Party.
L. Lo Sontag
Group 1 wants to enslave you.
Group 2 wants this country gone.
Hegemony, Racialization, and Compliance
The interplay between racialized class structures and state power remains pivotal. Whiteness, as a sociopolitical construct, historically confers selective privileges (e.g., differential policing outcomes). However, hegemony’s reliance on this group’s compliance reveals its fragility.
Collective non-cooperation by dominant populations poses a unique threat to authoritarian control (that’s good!!) This dynamic echoes Piven and Cloward’s theories on disruptive power as a catalyst for systemic change.
Current debates on compliance strategies—particularly the adoption of “over-compliance” by historically privileged groups—warrant caution. Many studies in sociology suggests that such tactics, often borne of fear, fail to ensure safety. OVER -COMPLIANCE DEFINITELY has not resulted in safety among marginalized and historically excluded populations and over compliance by dominant culture may inadvertently reinforce state dominance.
Non-violent resistance, by contrast, operates most effectively when wielded by large, cohesive groups capable of leveraging their structural centrality (what they have in common).
Non-violence isn’t compliance, it is an EFFECTIVE political strategy, especially when used with a large dominant population, doing nothing— you will not save yourself, that is like running from a dog. You don’t have to shoot a dog in the face to stop him, but you do have to turn around and forcibly say no if you want it to stop chasing you.
I strongly advise you to turn around and say no, with some energy.
My thoughts on April 19 —it should go on as planned. You cannot be afraid. What is needed is strategic, collective dissent—grounded in non-violent principles but unflinching in its assertiveness as it remains an empirically supported counter to coercive control. (Subscribe to AF/S TikTok where I discuss this—a lot)
@afeministinnj
There is one more paragraph of this essay left, so keep scrolling, There will be a test later.
To invoke Bourdieu, transforming symbolic capital into political capital requires both recognition and deliberate agency.
In warm solidarity,
Lo (& Kimberly)💋💋💋
