Historically and practically, seizing government buildings is rarely the "meta" (most effective strategy) for protesters because it carries extreme strategic risks that usually defeat the movement's goals

You know you're a nigger brain when
>Power is Digital and Decentralized: In the past, seizing a telegraph office or a parliament building could halt state operations. Today, government functions are digitized, cloud-based, and highly decentralized. Occupying a physical office rarely stops a government from functioning; officials can simply work from alternative locations, meaning the disruption to actual governance is minimal relative to the effort required.

>>18768941
It's a meta if you want to commit a revolution, but most protesters are too pussy to commit that and turn the act of protesting into a seething routine doing mindless vandalism and go back home afterwards.

>>18768941
>Why's "seizing government buildings" not the meta for protesters yet?

Earnestly a great question, with an interesting answer:
In large federalist continental countries like the United States, with sophisticated lines of communication, strong movement/transportation infrastructure, and people generally living sporadically or very far away from the capital, it's actually quite pointless to seize a government building. The government, our government(s), don't actually 'rule' from the government buildings, but instead dictate to us via telecommunication lines: phone, internet, television, closed networks, etc.. Think how George W. Bush was packaged and carted around in a plane immediately following 9/11, or how only a certain amount of government heads (head of energy, agriculture, president, defense, etc) can be in one place at a time. Tldr; The United States Government typically "works from home".
In 2nd and 3rd world shit holes, think: Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Eastern Soviet Blocs, etc.. However, the seizure of government buildings is of great strategic importance because often times this is basically the only place that country can actually govern the country from. They're often more centralized, more cosmopolitan, and in some cases might only have 1 city to begin with to actually rule or govern from. Worse yet, and to my previous point: in these less developed countries the population might also be incredibly centralized, so when people take the town hall, or the senate, there's a strong chance they're not going anywhere because they live like 12 blocs down or something.

To use an example of this in "motion": the January 6th protest on Capitol Hill was over and done with, basically over night, because the people who participated innit had to be bussed or flown into the capital. Very few, if any of them, actually lived in Washington, and once the party was over they had to quickly go back home, go back to work, etc..

>>18768941
99.9% of protestors are engaging in performative slop
they want social approval or feel like there is meaning to their lives

File: T-This is the first time (...).jpg (1.01 MB, 2699x1800)

1.01 MB JPG

>>18768941

See >>18768980

Most peasant revolts sputtered out for their organizers' lack of an actual plan to capitalize on their initial success.

>>18768941
Protests and riots basically never achieve anything. When they seem to do, they are more of a symptom of general dissent than a cause. The actual change is done by elites who are also dissenting.

The only bottom-up movements that actually work are strikes, because strikers have real leverage and can force the people in power to negotiations.