1 Just Rage: Politics Without Consensus Diane Enns (On Terror and Extreme Violence, Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, Belgrade, forthcoming) One has such rage, one would drink any blood, drought drives one mad. 1 The victim of unjust political rule rightly craves relief from the suffering and dehumanization of tyranny and demands the right to speak and act as a political subject. The longer this right is refused, the greater the victim's righteous indignation and fury; it festers, and the call for justice may turn into a call for blood, moral outrage and political dissent may turn into bloodlust. Emancipatory politics slides easily into violence, risking the permanent coupling of political dissent and bloodshed; a marriage morally justified, legitimized and reinforced in the name of justice. My point of departure in this discussion is what I will call two contemporary movements. The first of these is found in the affirmation of conflict or "agonism" in politics by contemporary political theorists. The second is what some are calling "a new era of protest," sparked in 2011 by the self‐immolation of a Tunisian man, spreading into the uprisings of the Arab Spring and the Occupy movement. We could add to this recent anti‐ blasphemy protests across the Muslim world, anti‐austerity riots in Europe, student demonstrations in Canada, Ireland, Chile and elsewhere, the protests of the Indignados in Spain, and so on. These theoretical and actual movements share an emphasis on dissent as the public expression of grievance, and some indifference or ambivalence towards violence. Political actors and analysts alike might view any action short of violent confrontation as capitulating to the forces of sovereign power; nonviolence might be spurned for its impotence, even, as Simon Critchley claims, its "dogmatic blindness." 2