Charlie Kirk Assassination

[Lilith7]

I saw a short clip the other day which pointed out something I thought was quite interesting:

For essentially all of human history, most societies have essentially operated under the principle of "might is right", whereby the chief/lord/king/emperor with the strongest armies and best connections takes power for themselves by force. Within that framework, assassinations were generally carried out by/for those that stood to gain from removal of the person(s) that was assassinated, and that wasn't a secret.

However, in relatively recent western history (the past 150-ish years), the rich and powerful have surprisingly decided to all start being "nice & kind" and to play by the rules etc., so they no longer use political assassinations as a means to acquire or maintain power.

The crazy coincidence though is that this shift in the practices of the rich and powerful - i.e. the ones that actually benefit from the assassinations - has surprisingly coincided with a rise in assassinations carried out by "lone gunmen" and disaffected people on the fringes of society who seemingly don't actually personally benefit at all (sometimes even, as with Lee Harvey Oswald, they themselves are almost immediately assassinated also).

" However, in relatively recent western history (the past 150-ish years), the rich and powerful have surprisingly decided to all start being "nice & kind" and to play by the rules etc., so they no longer use political assassinations as a means to acquire or maintain power."


Yeah.. sort of. On the surface anyway.
But there are other ways for the rich & powerful to get what they want. 

Making very sure those less well off are slowly made even  less well off. But not too slowly, of course. They need to feel the pinch eventually.

"Donating" to political parties.

Entering politics.

And of course, by generally being devious,underhanded b'stards...