imho that’s a good example of how scary the “might makes right” concept can be. because those nazis would, if they could, have changed a lot to “make it right” what they did. and we’d still be a genocidal murderous capitalist nightmare.
get to reading where available. get to the fresh air where available. bloc up.
There's a reason why you never hear about the Battle of Blair Mountain or Haymarket Square. It's why your education focuses on MLK instead of Malcolm X, and why no school child has ever heard of Marsha P. Johnson.
Throwing bricks helps move progress along, but no one will teach that to you because the people in power don't want you to be thinking about kicking their asses. Hell, Luigi probably saved thousands of lives by scaring health care companies into looking past the profit motive for a few days and approving claims.
Depends what you mean by preaching non-violence. If it includes conscientious objectors supporting other soldiers to quit, then I disagree. There’s plenty of that happening right now in the US, Russia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. They are the biggest threat to the state and to capitalism
In the wake of the tragic assignation of a loyal advocate for the Imperium, Carolus Kirk, the High Lords of Terra have added their voices to those condemning all forms of political violence as a vile form of heresy which must be immediately purged through cleansing fire.
Although the Inquisition has yet to release details on the assassin's motivations, it is likely that he was under the influence of heresy, manipulated by either by xenos or the forces of Chaos. Heretical rumors that the shooter believed that Carolus himself was being manipulated by such forces are completely false. Carolus, who is survived by his wife and children, never once wavered in his loyal advocacy for the values of the Imperium, which he believed in to his core: hatred and intolerance to xenos and heretics of all kinds.
In brighter news, a dozen xenos worlds have been put to the torch leaving no survivors, as the Adeptus Astartes continue their heroic mission to eradicate all those who would stand against the Imperium and the absolute dominance of humanity.
Glory to the Emperor, and death to all those who celebrate political violence!
Protests themselves are just us saying we're trying the peaceful option first. They hold no real power in their action except with the danger of violence.
This is my problem with the No Kings protests. Plenty will say they're open to more radical forms of protest instead of just walking around with signs, but when you bring up escalating to violence or appearing to escalate soon by surrounding the signs with armed protestors, they chicken out and tell you they can't do that cause they're scared how the state will react.
Millions suffer from the violence of wage theft and protest?
Some bricks end up through some windows?
That's the only violence that matters.
Government funding a genocide, executing its own purge of 99% nonviolent migrants?
Opposing this, vocally... that's violence.
But not what they're doing.
... I dunno, maybe there actually is some kind of broad sea change now, now that its so horrendously obvious, but vast majority of my life, vast majority of people fall back on 'well, you can't do that, because that's not legal'.
... While the pedophile rapist corrupt conartists write the laws.
Nonviolence does not mean passivity, it just means different tactics that allow for wider participation and doesn't give the regime and its hired goons an "easy out" by politically/socially/mentally legitimizing the counter-violence to repress the movement in order to maintain "law and order" and "protect" the rest of society from "hooligans"
"First, it must be emphasized that nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist. If one uses these methods because he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments of violence, he is not truly nonviolent. This is why Gandhi often said that if cowardice is the only alternative to violence, it is better to fight. He made this statement conscious of the fact that there is always another alternative: no individual or group need submit to any wrong, nor need they use violence to right the wrong; there is the way of nonviolent resistance. This is ultimately the way of the strong man. It is not a method of stagnant passivity. The phrase "passive resistance"; often gives the false impression that this is a sort of "do-nothing method" in which the resister quietly and passively accepts evil. But nothing is further from the truth. For while the nonviolent resister is passive in the sense that he is not physically aggressive toward his opponent, his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade his opponent that he is wrong. The method is passive physically, but strongly active spiritually. It is not passive non-resistance to evil, it is active nonviolent resistance to evil. A second basic fact that characterizes nonviolence is that it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through non-cooperation or boycotts, but he realizes that these are not ends in themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent. The end is redemption and reconciliation. The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness." (Martin Luther King, Jr., https://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/pilgrimage.php)
"Nonviolent campaigns have a participation advantage over violent insurgencies, which is an important factor in determining campaign outcomes. The moral, physical, informational, and commitment barriers to participation are much lower for nonviolent resistance than for violent insurgency. Higher levels of participation contribute to a number of mechanisms necessary for success, including enhanced resilience, higher probabilities of tactical innovation, expanded civic disruption (thereby raising the costs to the regime of maintaining the status quo), and loyalty shifts involving the opponent’s erstwhile [=previous] supporters, including members of the security forces. Mobilization among local supporters is a more reliable source of power than the support of external allies, which many violent campaigns must obtain to compensate for their lack of participants. Moreover, we find that the transitions that occur in the wake of successful nonviolent resistance movements create much more durable and internally peaceful democracies than transitions provoked by violent insurgencies. On the whole, nonviolent resistance campaigns are more effective in getting results and, once they have succeeded, more likely to establish democratic regimes with a lower probability of a relapse into civil war. [..] nonviolent campaigns facilitate the active participation of many more people than violent campaigns, thereby broadening the base of resistance and raising the costs to opponents of maintaining the status quo. The mass civilian participation in a nonviolent campaign is more likely to backfire in the face of repression, encourage loyalty shifts among regime supporters, and provide resistance leaders with a more diverse menu of tactical and strategic choices. To regime elites, those engaged in civil resistance are more likely to appear as credible negotiating partners than are violent insurgents" (Erica Chenoweth & Maria J. Stephan - Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic Of Nonviolent Conflict)
No doubt, but a violent resistant can bring on more violence compared to a nonviolent one, and it has less of a chance to bring in the wanted changes in the long run.
Case by case basis of course, but MLK wouldn't have been successful without Malcom X. The nonviolent method worked because of the very real threat of a violent alternative.
Targeting them where it really hurts, is also key in utilising the violence . We need to let systems that support them crumble. What do we need to tear down, to hurt them the most. Where do we best aim the destruction.
Whatever you belive violence against oppressive regime or not. It is an inevitability after a long absence of justice. Hitler would have exterminate jews if Germany did not declare war and lost against the allies
Right, or for another example, the many times oppressive states have had someone infiltrate protest movements to advocate/act violently, because they know that will get a better outcome for them.
That would allow them to justify the violence they were always planning to do, yeah. The fact is that the state is more powerful than we are. If we threaten it's control on violence it will react overwhelmingly.
There's that great book from the 60s that talks about systemic jiu-jitsu - how to use the power advantage of the state against it. That book is ideologically against pacisficism but tactically for it. "Do these ends justify these means", is the question it wants activists to ask, framing it with a quote from ghandi saying that he chose non-violence solely because it was the best tool to achieve their aims.
okay? shit sucks. but hearing about it over and over again is exhausting. this post can be posted any year and it'll still be relevant because nothing ever fucking changes quick enough unless the powers to be allow it.
Bullshit. These examples are plainly illegal, corrupt, and as destructive to democracy as this sentiment.
Of course if you just gotta murder people, this is as irrelevant as anything else.
This sentiment is fully consistent with nazi ideology and FSB propaganda though. Consider that.
Finally, if one were actually to believe this, then one is constantly failing to effect change by not committing violent acts. It’s idiocy. So, either get to stabbing other humans or understand what a pile of shit this “violence destroys ‘the state’” is really saying.
As a side note to all the tankies who wish to engage, that isn’t going to happen. Peace.
LOL
Not even going to engage.
Simply ridicule TF out of your BS and further enjoy your cancer country going down the shitter.
Taking all the shitlibs with them without resistance.
Good riddance.
Would you vote not guilty on the whca shooter? Because I would. I wouldn't do it because i dont want to risk prison time, but he did nothing wrong, he was defending the country from actual traitors and serial child rapists.
Also this prime example
imho that’s a good example of how scary the “might makes right” concept can be. because those nazis would, if they could, have changed a lot to “make it right” what they did. and we’d still be a genocidal murderous capitalist nightmare.
get to reading where available. get to the fresh air where available. bloc up.
It's not terrorism when the government does it.
Agreed.
There's a reason why you never hear about the Battle of Blair Mountain or Haymarket Square. It's why your education focuses on MLK instead of Malcolm X, and why no school child has ever heard of Marsha P. Johnson.
Throwing bricks helps move progress along, but no one will teach that to you because the people in power don't want you to be thinking about kicking their asses. Hell, Luigi probably saved thousands of lives by scaring health care companies into looking past the profit motive for a few days and approving claims.
Violence (and the "might makes right, dog eat dog" elevation of it) IS the civilization.
The state is an institution of violence control.
From our zoning laws to our concentration camps, it's always about keeping violence in the hands of a small controlling elite.
Depends what you mean by preaching non-violence. If it includes conscientious objectors supporting other soldiers to quit, then I disagree. There’s plenty of that happening right now in the US, Russia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. They are the biggest threat to the state and to capitalism
The Imperium of Man condemns all political violence.
:::spoiler spoiler
In the wake of the tragic assignation of a loyal advocate for the Imperium, Carolus Kirk, the High Lords of Terra have added their voices to those condemning all forms of political violence as a vile form of heresy which must be immediately purged through cleansing fire.
Although the Inquisition has yet to release details on the assassin's motivations, it is likely that he was under the influence of heresy, manipulated by either by xenos or the forces of Chaos. Heretical rumors that the shooter believed that Carolus himself was being manipulated by such forces are completely false. Carolus, who is survived by his wife and children, never once wavered in his loyal advocacy for the values of the Imperium, which he believed in to his core: hatred and intolerance to xenos and heretics of all kinds.
In brighter news, a dozen xenos worlds have been put to the torch leaving no survivors, as the Adeptus Astartes continue their heroic mission to eradicate all those who would stand against the Imperium and the absolute dominance of humanity.
Glory to the Emperor, and death to all those who celebrate political violence!
Protests themselves are just us saying we're trying the peaceful option first. They hold no real power in their action except with the danger of violence.
They’re supposed to be, yes.
When you show no sign of escalation while fascism creeps for 25+ years, you’re just doing parades.
This is my problem with the No Kings protests. Plenty will say they're open to more radical forms of protest instead of just walking around with signs, but when you bring up escalating to violence or appearing to escalate soon by surrounding the signs with armed protestors, they chicken out and tell you they can't do that cause they're scared how the state will react.
They usually qualify it with the adjective "political violence" because most think the other types are just fine.
'Political violence' isn't 'political' or 'violence' when the state does it, according to it.
Despite the state literally being a politically derived monopoly on violence.
I mean I think most understand that it's violence and I think that's why they add that qualifier.
Reminds me of the "no more regime change wars"...like more wars, yes, but just not of this specific variety that I can deny it is.
No I disagree.
Look at the propoganda, look at cults it creates.
Millions suffer from the violence of wage theft and protest?
Some bricks end up through some windows?
That's the only violence that matters.
Government funding a genocide, executing its own purge of 99% nonviolent migrants?
Opposing this, vocally... that's violence.
But not what they're doing.
... I dunno, maybe there actually is some kind of broad sea change now, now that its so horrendously obvious, but vast majority of my life, vast majority of people fall back on 'well, you can't do that, because that's not legal'.
... While the pedophile rapist corrupt conartists write the laws.
I see what you did there!
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state
If you're not familiar with Saul's work, I encourage you to listen to his song List of Demands
"when choosing between imperfect or horrible, choose neither, highlight the imperfections in the better option and keep your head high"
I can also do annoying metaphors:
When choosing between "genocide" and "genocide," pick the blue one, and then pretend that everyone who picked neither is a worse person than you.
A sack of flour would make a big biscuit!
Oh, empty words, I can do these too! If you always do the right thing, you never have to make a choice.
Violence has no place in a democracy.
You are talking of the violence in the post-democracy kleptocracy you live it.
So what they're saying is that they think the American Revolution was a bad thing?
Yes. It’s called the monopoly on violence, which means the state can use violence and you can’t.
Good to see Brother Saul still being as based as ever
Nonviolence does not mean passivity, it just means different tactics that allow for wider participation and doesn't give the regime and its hired goons an "easy out" by politically/socially/mentally legitimizing the counter-violence to repress the movement in order to maintain "law and order" and "protect" the rest of society from "hooligans"
Of course, nonviolence is not a foolproof method, it just has a better chance of succeeding. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIpgrZ8yS-Q)
I keep seeing this sentiment. They're going to do the violence no matter what. They are actively doing it.
No doubt, but a violent resistant can bring on more violence compared to a nonviolent one, and it has less of a chance to bring in the wanted changes in the long run.
Case by case basis of course, but MLK wouldn't have been successful without Malcom X. The nonviolent method worked because of the very real threat of a violent alternative.
Targeting them where it really hurts, is also key in utilising the violence . We need to let systems that support them crumble. What do we need to tear down, to hurt them the most. Where do we best aim the destruction.
Oh hey, I know that guy!
... did a uh, somewhat prescient song a while back.
Gunshots by Computer
Best to lie down and capitulate
Edit: I was going to engage with you, but it's just not how I want to spend my time. I wish you the best.
clown shit.
Preaching violence can also end up protecting the state, if the situation is one where nonviolence would have been more effective.
Whatever you belive violence against oppressive regime or not. It is an inevitability after a long absence of justice. Hitler would have exterminate jews if Germany did not declare war and lost against the allies
I think this is an incredibly important point. That fact is that the state does hold a monopoly on the legitimized use of violence.
Non-violence is the tactically correct choice in most situations. Punching a boss in the face is justified, but unlikely to result in a better wages.
Right, or for another example, the many times oppressive states have had someone infiltrate protest movements to advocate/act violently, because they know that will get a better outcome for them.
That would allow them to justify the violence they were always planning to do, yeah. The fact is that the state is more powerful than we are. If we threaten it's control on violence it will react overwhelmingly.
There's that great book from the 60s that talks about systemic jiu-jitsu - how to use the power advantage of the state against it. That book is ideologically against pacisficism but tactically for it. "Do these ends justify these means", is the question it wants activists to ask, framing it with a quote from ghandi saying that he chose non-violence solely because it was the best tool to achieve their aims.
okay? shit sucks. but hearing about it over and over again is exhausting. this post can be posted any year and it'll still be relevant because nothing ever fucking changes quick enough unless the powers to be allow it.
Dig your head in the sand and go cry somewhere else.
you sound like someone that preheats the microwave
Bullshit. These examples are plainly illegal, corrupt, and as destructive to democracy as this sentiment.
Of course if you just gotta murder people, this is as irrelevant as anything else.
This sentiment is fully consistent with nazi ideology and FSB propaganda though. Consider that.
Finally, if one were actually to believe this, then one is constantly failing to effect change by not committing violent acts. It’s idiocy. So, either get to stabbing other humans or understand what a pile of shit this “violence destroys ‘the state’” is really saying.
As a side note to all the tankies who wish to engage, that isn’t going to happen. Peace.
careful with all that edge, bro.
LOL
Not even going to engage.
Simply ridicule TF out of your BS and further enjoy your cancer country going down the shitter.
Taking all the shitlibs with them without resistance.
Good riddance.
For the record I have that user tagged as neoliberal scum. Don't quite recall why but it seems relevant.
Would you vote not guilty on the whca shooter? Because I would. I wouldn't do it because i dont want to risk prison time, but he did nothing wrong, he was defending the country from actual traitors and serial child rapists.