Necessitating Violence

[United Marxist Nations]

How?

How is using violence going to end subtle discrimination in the workforce?

How is killing a klan member going to change the fact that cops are slightly more likely to resort to violence if the perp is Black?

How will mobs of LGBT people setting fires and overturning cars change public opinion about them in a positive way?

This strategy cannot help you. It's never helped anyone.

Fear is a powerful tool. It helped Lenin in 1917

Fear works best if you actually have a lot of societal power and the entity you are opposing is weak. In the case of a lot of the above, you would quickly unite public opinion in-favor of the opposition, and likely cause outright pogroms against the groups you are trying to protect.

[The East Marches]

Shitty Pinochet posts never get stale. I was hoping a similar page would pop for Franco. I imagine he is just as exploitable for that kind of stuff. Speaking of which, I hope to visit "The Valley of the Fallen" this summer. I will be sure to say hi for you.

I did say Pinochet made me rather uncomfortable(and the whole getting thrown out an aircraft thing is more an Argentine dirty way thing than Pinochet's. A rape dogs meme would have made more sense.). Franco's brutality was more restrained, and he protected Spain from destructive modernity while he lived. Pity he's still dead.

Yeah but rape dogs aren't funny. You can laugh at somebody falling from a helicopter, its tougher to laugh at rape dogs. Besides, everybody knows him for "the caravan of death" more than anything. Its even got a nice catchy ring to it.

Franco's brutality was more old school. He was doing executions on masse over a wide country versus a small localized area. Its a civil war versus a coup. Total different methods of maintaining order. Besides, the whole putting down of the Reds had come a long way in 30 years.

Its very unfair to compare the two in my own opinion. He didn't just protect Spain, there is also the Spanish miracle to take into account too. Both Generalissimos had a good understanding of their own lack of knowledge on economics. They both accordingly appointed people who knew what they were doing. You can argue he protected Spain from modern ideas but he didn't keep it regressed economically speaking.

However, we are getting off-topic. I'd be happy to continue this conversation in a TG if you'd like.

[Dinake]

I did say Pinochet made me rather uncomfortable(and the whole getting thrown out an aircraft thing is more an Argentine dirty way thing than Pinochet's. A rape dogs meme would have made more sense.). Franco's brutality was more restrained, and he protected Spain from destructive modernity while he lived. Pity he's still dead.

Yeah but rape dogs aren't funny. You can laugh at somebody falling from a helicopter, its tougher to laugh at rape dogs. Besides, everybody knows him for "the caravan of death" more than anything. Its even got a nice catchy ring to it.

Franco's brutality was more old school. He was doing executions on masse over a wide country versus a small localized area. Its a civil war versus a coup. Total different methods of maintaining order. Besides, the whole putting down of the Reds had come a long way in 30 years.

Its very unfair to compare the two in my own opinion. He didn't just protect Spain, there is also the Spanish miracle to take into account too. Both Generalissimos had a good understanding of their own lack of knowledge on economics. They both accordingly appointed people who knew what they were doing.

At least Franco seemed to know what he didn't know about economics, which is more than you can say for most modern leaders.

[The East Marches]

Yeah but rape dogs aren't funny. You can laugh at somebody falling from a helicopter, its tougher to laugh at rape dogs. Besides, everybody knows him for "the caravan of death" more than anything. Its even got a nice catchy ring to it.

Franco's brutality was more old school. He was doing executions on masse over a wide country versus a small localized area. Its a civil war versus a coup. Total different methods of maintaining order. Besides, the whole putting down of the Reds had come a long way in 30 years.

Its very unfair to compare the two in my own opinion. He didn't just protect Spain, there is also the Spanish miracle to take into account too. Both Generalissimos had a good understanding of their own lack of knowledge on economics. They both accordingly appointed people who knew what they were doing.

At least Franco seemed to know what he didn't know about economics, which is more than you can say for most modern leaders.

Which is definitely a good point. Not even trolling. It takes a lot of guts to admit what you don't know and ask for outside help. We have trouble doing that as individual people today. Imagine how difficult that must be when you are trying to maintain an imagine as a leader.

[Soviet Armadillos]

JFC, no, just no.

"You reap what you sow, Artyom: force answers force, war breeds war, and death only brings death. To break this vicious circle one must do more than act without any thought or doubt."
-Khan, Metro 2033

There is no way that you can extinguish the fire of hatred by drowning it in gasoline. Nor will there ever be an extinction of ignorance, sadly enough. To enact violence upon people who hate you makes you no better than them. Fun as it sounds to go out and curb stomp your local Neo-Nazi, you know damn well this is exactly what they want.

They want a justification for their hatred, their bloodthristiness, their violence. Anti-white sentiments, God's will, they crave a justifciation for hate. So now, we hand it to them. First we were heathens. Now, they take to the streets and sing of /violent/ heathens.
This is a suicide of any cause the LGBT had. While i can in no way consider myself a prominent member, I support its message. This is NOT the way to spread it.

[Eternal Summeria]

And you know the only way to instille discipline inside a mob army? Decimation and Russian style arbitrary executions.

The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few

So you are saying that in areas where whites are the majority it's ok to be racist against minorities?

[Kubra]

That's why you have ways of keeping people in line, it's called discipline.

And you know the only way to instille discipline inside a mob army? Decimation and Russian style arbitrary executions.

Is that how Napoleon did it during the italian campaign
His forces might not have been the paragons of discipline during the directory, but they weren't slouches, certainly better disciplined than those silly austrians.

[Pope Joan]

As women, LGBT people, and people of color get slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis, I'm starting to think it's necessary the left take a no tolerance approach — by that, I mean by using violence.

Is there any inherent virtue in free speech? What argument is there, beyond a religious and occult idea of being "endowed by our creator" with the right to perpetuate injustice? Consider that bigots already defend rape, murder, and harassment — of course they will object to that assertion, because they themselves have a vested interest in protecting themselves as well as criminals (if any overlap exists) — so is the right to violent expression, by association, not cause for alarm?

Or perhaps it is that they are calling for more than mere expression. While, if this expression had no indirect effects, it might be acceptable, it instead causes irreparable harm that we would combat with violence if it occurred directly. When a legislator passes an order, that is not mere expression.

Is it not right, then, to react to the causes and perpetrators of violence with violence? Is the historic bloc is to be replaced, is it not necessary to act on it as it has acted on us?

What do you dare to think, NSG?

The ones who declared that they were "endowed by their creator" with certain natural rights were prepared to back up that assertion with force, and did so. Concerning these rights, they declared: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it....[and] when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,"
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

We have a right to use force as a last resort for a good cause; it is our heritage.

[Republic of the Cristo]

You do realize that the far-right extremists have militias, neo nazi skinhead groups, the KKK, biker gangs, veterans, law enforcement, etc.

What do your 'intellectuals' have? Wikipedia sources and hot coffee from starbucks? Lmao

Not all veterans share the same views as you, nor all law enforcement, nor all biker gangs, I've seen more new Nazi skinhead groups being scared out of towns than refugees moving into said towns

The left wing also has militias, when was the last time the right wing side pulled off something like the revolution in Russia in 1917

I am not siding with him, nor am I condoning violence, but Traditionalism has a point. Although some veterans and law enforcement are not some form of right wing, the VAST MAJORITY. The largest, most well armed, and most experienced ( having combat training and experiences ) militias in the United States are either Strict-constitutionalist groups, or white separatist groups. Although groups like the Black Panthers do have militias as well, they are tiny when compared to the Fire and man power of the right wing militias.

Assuming that such a Left-wing revolution were to kick off, it would most likely occur from the following groups: lower-class blacks, Hispanics, unionized blue collar workers - Middle-Upper class socialist college students. I am basing the man power off of possible " Boots on the ground " instead of mere sympathizers. Of these groups, only the blacks have a political militia set up to forefront such a revolution. Secondly, all of these groups already have a bad public image, so a violent revolution will only further such an image. Thirdly, non of these groups have any significant military veterans present in their communities.

So, with a lack of: Soldiers, Good PR, and combat experience, such a revolution would be doomed to fail against the Juggernaut that is Right-wing preparedness.

But, again, I am not condoning violence * he says as he clutches his bible *

[Minzerland]

Judging from the beginning of their post:



Presumably anyone who isn't a woman, a LGBT person and isn't a 'PoC'.

I'm also where these people are getting "slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis". I'm sure it's happening to some degree everywhere, but necessitating a revolution? Am I missing some backwater Hitler killing everyone?

Saudi Arabia?

[Threlizdun]

Self-defense is a natural and acceptable response to violence. Violence should be avoided when possible, though there are absolutely times when it is necessary. It is definitely a good idea for disadvantaged groups to organize in their own defense and in the defense of other marginalized peoples.

[USS Monitor]

As women, LGBT people, and people of color get slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis,

Where do you live that this is happening? Cos here in Massachusetts, that's not normal.

[Washington Resistance Army]

As women, LGBT people, and people of color get slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis,

Where do you live that this is happening? Cos here in Massachusetts, that's not normal.

It happens everywhere Monitor, come join our pogroms whenever you're free.

[USS Monitor]

Where do you live that this is happening? Cos here in Massachusetts, that's not normal.

It happens everywhere Monitor, come join our pogroms whenever you're free.

No can do. That's a man's job.

[Herskerstad]

Where do you live that this is happening? Cos here in Massachusetts, that's not normal.

It happens everywhere Monitor, come join our pogroms whenever you're free.

The patriarchy is mandating that I just buy a steel bat and let loose in a disco to get my monthly patriarchy check.

I told them that unless i get a really cool animal hat and they give me a call that is off the table.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Malcolm X had a good quote on the subject: "Concerning non-violence: it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks."

The only gun control I support is controlling the flow of arms and directing it into the hands of oppressed and marginalized groups, away from the establishment and reactionaries. This is one of the biggest issues with liberalism. They want to make some of the most vulnerable people in society - such as the mentally ill, who are much more likely to be victims of violence than to turn a weapon on themselves - even more vulnerable by depriving them of the equalizing power of firearms. Oh, and charging for licenses and classes and so on - a popular avenue to ensure underprivileged members of society, the lower classes, have no means of empowering themselves. Stripping the downtrodden of their right to bear arms forces them to rely on a largely bigoted and unsympathetic police force. It's disgusting.

TL;DR: Less "hands up, don't shoot." More "arms up, shoot back."

[Mahakala]

Violence will always be necessary to bring the Third Rome and the Fascist Golden Age.

[Soviet Armadillos]

It happens everywhere Monitor, come join our pogroms whenever you're free.

The patriarchy is mandating that I just buy a steel bat and let loose in a disco to get my monthly patriarchy check.

I told them that unless i get a really cool animal hat and they give me a call that is off the table.

Your Hotline Miami reference. I see it.

[The balkens]

Malcolm X had a good quote on the subject: "Concerning non-violence: it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks."

The only gun control I support is controlling the flow of arms and directing it into the hands of oppressed and marginalized groups, away from the establishment and reactionaries. This is one of the biggest issues with liberalism. They want to make some of the most vulnerable people in society - such as the mentally ill, who are much more likely to be victims of violence than to turn a weapon on themselves - even more vulnerable by depriving them of the equalizing power of firearms. Oh, and charging for licenses and classes and so on - a popular avenue to ensure underprivileged members of society, the lower classes, have no means of empowering themselves. Stripping the downtrodden of their right to bear arms forces them to rely on a largely bigoted and unsympathetic police force. It's disgusting.

TL;DR: Less "hands up, don't shoot." More "arms up, shoot back."

"hey fam, i got a dumb idea, lets get more people killed."

"i got ya."

[Zoice]

Malcolm X had a good quote on the subject: "Concerning non-violence: it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks."

The only gun control I support is controlling the flow of arms and directing it into the hands of oppressed and marginalized groups, away from the establishment and reactionaries. This is one of the biggest issues with liberalism. They want to make some of the most vulnerable people in society - such as the mentally ill, who are much more likely to be victims of violence than to turn a weapon on themselves - even more vulnerable by depriving them of the equalizing power of firearms. Oh, and charging for licenses and classes and so on - a popular avenue to ensure underprivileged members of society, the lower classes, have no means of empowering themselves. Stripping the downtrodden of their right to bear arms forces them to rely on a largely bigoted and unsympathetic police force. It's disgusting.

TL;DR: Less "hands up, don't shoot." More "arms up, shoot back."

So you want more wars between communities and the police?

[United Marxist Nations]

Malcolm X had a good quote on the subject: "Concerning non-violence: it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks."

The only gun control I support is controlling the flow of arms and directing it into the hands of oppressed and marginalized groups, away from the establishment and reactionaries. This is one of the biggest issues with liberalism. They want to make some of the most vulnerable people in society - such as the mentally ill, who are much more likely to be victims of violence than to turn a weapon on themselves - even more vulnerable by depriving them of the equalizing power of firearms. Oh, and charging for licenses and classes and so on - a popular avenue to ensure underprivileged members of society, the lower classes, have no means of empowering themselves. Stripping the downtrodden of their right to bear arms forces them to rely on a largely bigoted and unsympathetic police force. It's disgusting.

TL;DR: Less "hands up, don't shoot." More "arms up, shoot back."

So you want more wars between communities and the police?

If police are committing abuses, then I think that is a reasonable reaction.

[Salus Maior]

As women, LGBT people, and people of color get slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis, I'm starting to think it's necessary the left take a no tolerance approach — by that, I mean by using violence.

Is there any inherent virtue in free speech? What argument is there, beyond a religious and occult idea of being "endowed by our creator" with the right to perpetuate injustice? Consider that bigots already defend rape, murder, and harassment — of course they will object to that assertion, because they themselves have a vested interest in protecting themselves as well as criminals (if any overlap exists) — so is the right to violent expression, by association, not cause for alarm?

Or perhaps it is that they are calling for more than mere expression. While, if this expression had no indirect effects, it might be acceptable, it instead causes irreparable harm that we would combat with violence if it occurred directly. When a legislator passes an order, that is not mere expression.

Is it not right, then, to react to the causes and perpetrators of violence with violence? Is the historic bloc is to be replaced, is it not necessary to act on it as it has acted on us?

What do you dare to think, NSG?

The ones who declared that they were "endowed by their creator" with certain natural rights were prepared to back up that assertion with force, and did so. Concerning these rights, they declared: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it....[and] when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,"
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

We have a right to use force as a last resort for a good cause; it is our heritage.

Then use it as a last resort. What we have now is not beyond hope, it won't get fixed tomorrow, but in time things will get better.

I mean come on, historically speaking, racial minorities and LGBT have more rights than ever before. Yes, there's people pushing back, but that's no reason to overthrow the government just because our world isn't perfect. And igniting a civil war isn't going to somehow make the world perfect.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

The ones who declared that they were "endowed by their creator" with certain natural rights were prepared to back up that assertion with force, and did so. Concerning these rights, they declared: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it....[and] when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,"
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

We have a right to use force as a last resort for a good cause; it is our heritage.

Then use it as a last resort. What we have now is not beyond hope, it won't get fixed tomorrow, but in time things will get better.

I mean come on, historically speaking, racial minorities and LGBT have more rights than ever before. Yes, there's people pushing back, but that's no reason to overthrow the government just because our world isn't perfect. And igniting a civil war isn't going to somehow make the world perfect.

If it weren't for certain people we wouldn't have had to fight for those rights. And, keyword fight. I don't think it's accurate to say all the rights of the oppressed arose from petitions and talks with the Sheriff.

[Zoice]

So you want more wars between communities and the police?

If police are committing abuses, then I think that is a reasonable reaction.

No, it isn't. The best case scenario is that you get off lightly for shooting at police. The much more likely scenario is that you and other people nearby are killed or injured, and you end up with people going after cops intentionally. Police brutality should be dealt with, but not by vigilantism.

[United Marxist Nations]

If police are committing abuses, then I think that is a reasonable reaction.

No, it isn't. The best case scenario is that you get off lightly for shooting at police. The much more likely scenario is that you and other people nearby are killed or injured, and you end up with people going after cops intentionally. Police brutality should be dealt with, but not by vigilantism.

How will you deal with it then? How do you deal with a government that is abusing you and doesn't particularly care to stop?