The gross, dangerous fallacy of the non-violent fighters of oppression
The non-violence movement has been a disaster from start to finish in the struggle for freedom. It has aided tyranny in its divide-and-conquer strategy in an active and obvious way. Its proponents aid the police when the police beat up protesters and crush their skulls, by blaming the protesters, calling them violent for being beaten up.
It’s so obvious even, such a self-evident display of manufactured consent.
I’ve attended countless protests, and I’ve never seen protesters attacking the police. That would also be extremely silly, with the police wearing armor and carrying guns and clubs and having all the advantages on their side. Protesters, as a general rule, at least the true protesters fighting a thoroughly unjust and brutal society, aren’t stupid.
Non-violent rebellion may have some value as a short-term tactic, but certainly not as a long-term strategy.
The only country where non-violence has even remotely "worked" is in India, and that is because there were 600 million Indian citizens against only 600 000 British occupiers.
Lasting non-violent tactics play by the rules of the Enemy, the rules of engagement carefully chosen by the oppressive society to paralyze a given movement.
No true rebel movement should deselect any given weapon at its disposal. The odds are certainly against us already.
It is so very important to disregard any definition of good behavior coming from the establishment. A protest where the police are smiling afterwards is not a protest, but an exercise in conformity, futility, servility and obedience.
Yes, all the perceived great heroes of the «non-violence movement» were wrong.
I still see some of them as great people, though. Anyone putting themselves in harm’s way fighting oppression is.
«A riot is the language of the unheard». Martin Luther King