Friday, May 29, 2020

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 great heroes of the «non-violence movement» were wrong.
  I still see many 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

Friday, May 22, 2020

Watchdogs 2

  A considerable number of a given population takes active part in the suppression of free thought. If you speak on the phone or just have a conversation about a perceived controversial or radical subject on the bus or in public in general, you’re often told to not do so. That isn’t because you speak aloud or anything. You’re not told to lower your voice, but told specifically to not speak about that subject. Even if people don’t voice their displeasure, they still stare at you with angry eyes, and the threat of violence might be both implied and executed.
  It might concern a number of subjects, like the insanity of being a NATO-member, a war-supporter, the ongoing massive pollution, the climate change, the Mass Extinction Event, racism, inequality, injustice, wage slavery, modern slavery…
  Stuff like that.
  Like Stephen Biko pointed out; the ordinary men and women, the minds of the oppressed are tyranny’s first line of defense against those who would oppose it. They’ve been successfully brainwashed, subjected to pervasive establishment propaganda, to manufactured consent from the cradle. How can you tell? It’s quite easy, really. They keep using establishment talking points, doing so practically in every second sentence or so. I guess this is more obvious to an author, to one who is trained in interpreting texts, but everyone should easily see it. Those not doing so are clearly a part of the herd themselves. This is not rocket science, but self-evident facts.
  I have written before about the need for encouraging critical thinking in any given society, and to fight hard for it in a society like ours, where those in charge are clearly not interested in doing anything like that. They want people to be eager, supportive mules, and in that, they’ve pretty much succeeded.