I have conflicted thoughts about this. First, the right to protest is sacred in a democracy. Second, as an agent of positive social change protest seems like more of a byproduct of anger than a catalyst for change. Unless laser-focused on achieving concrete objectives, I think it often serves the need for group solidarity and venting rage. I think BLM differs from the Civil Rights Movement, because they aren't fighting for anything, they just want to destroy the system. I'm glad you mentioned the French Revolution because I think we are on a path towards what they experienced during The Terror. I used to consider myself a solid liberal. I identified as a feminist, a socialist, and very much in favor of empowering and protecting people from the excesses of state power. But now the radical left is just as corrupt and myopic as the right, and their aims are not to share power and help everyone's fortunes rise together, but rather, it is about enforcing ideological purity, censorship, and rigid conformity. They have replaced all their ideals with a long and ever-growing list of grievances and a victimhood narrative, full of self-righteous justifications for hurting others. In this sense the left and right are no different from each other. Their fixation on race allows the left to be easily controlled and manipulated, and is fundamentally disempowering. It prevents people from creating and maintaining a shared identity based on class and other factors. The divisions created by the false-narrative of racial division ultimately (and ironically) is what makes it possible for the real power brokers and malevolent agents of the state to control us. Without the culture wars, the worst elements of the right couldn't unite their base through frenzied paranoia, nor could the left. And yet both sides are equally bereft of vision, and no plan except to further identify and exclude outsiders from their holy crusades. I think I can understand why the author dismisses many large groups of protestors as "mobs," but while I think social change through protest may be largely self-serving and often ineffective, that doesn't in any way negate the legitimate grievances that drives some protest groups, and sometimes violent protest is a natural consequence of oppression. However, I reject the notion that oppression and racism are everywhere all the time, or that one group is irredeemably evil and another infallibly good. If these deterministic assumptions are correct, than everyone's actions are essentially meaningless, because we are all just automatons mindlessly following a script written into our very DNA. It's a hopeless, pessimistic philosophy which which aids oppression rather than overcomes it by failing to observe and promote the common interests of disparate groups of oppressed people. Anyway, sorry for the ramble, thanks for providing a thought-provoking analysis of what sounds like an interesting book. Much appreciated!