People are so conditioned by the idea that nonviolent change can be achieved that they will actively work against those who use the actual effective methods. Like crabs in a bucket we’ll doom ourselves to the boiling pot of water. The constitutional right to a peaceful protest doesn’t mean shit when the president has already dismissed the idea that he has to uphold the constitution. At this point it’s nothing more than words on parchment that they’re supposed to care about but don’t. Don’t bet your life on their adherence to it.
Nonviolent change only works if those in charge either care about us and want to improve our lives (they don’t) or they fear that not giving us what we want will hurt them somehow (it won’t if you fucking help them get rid of the ones willing to hurt them). Even if we achieve the fabled halting of the economy from so many people refusing to work that it can’t sustain itself, the rich will be the ones who starve last. There will always be people willing to do dirty work for evil men in exchange for gold and expensive baubles.
that they will actively work against those who use the actual effective methods
Such as?
It’s incredibly naive to think than an armed rebellion would succeed, considering the large technological gap of weaponry between the general populace and those that uphold the world order.
A peaceful protest that doesn’t have the risk of turning not so peaceful will just be ignored. The civil rights movement didn’t succeed because the government agreed with the protesters. It succeeded because the cities were under threat of being burned down. Everything you were taught about the civil rights movement was centered around ignoring that part.
Which notable leaders or major figures of the civil rights movement advocated for violence, threatened violence, or encouraged threats to achieve meaningful progress? What are some notable, pivotal events in the civil rights movement that were significant to history and were underscored by the threat of violence?
Personally, I feel that the civil rights movement was a significantly more polarized and divisive time for the American people. The movement we need today has significantly less people standing in the way from my perspective.
Which notable leaders or major figures of the civil rights movement advocated for violence
Not what I actually said. I was talking about protests. The leaders, even if they know violence might be necessary, will not openly advocate for it. They will speak with a degree of plausible deniability. Or they’re John Brown.
Personally, I feel that the civil rights movement was a significantly more polarized and divisive time for the American people. The movement we need today has significantly less people standing in the way from my perspective.
What is your perspective worth? Where you there in the 60s? From an academic perspective, it looks the same.
Me: What are some notable, pivotal events in the civil rights movement that were significant to history and were underscored by the threat of violence?
In your eyes, what protests or events in the civil rights movement (that generally threatened violence or resulted in violence) led to a significant shift or significant movement?
I was expecting you to fill the gap in my American public school education. You can also direct me to a book or any resources that help me to understand your perspective better, particularly from a historical standpoint.
What is your perspective worth?
My perspective is worth just as much as anybody else’s. Everybody who cares about the present and future likely wants solutions and change in some form or another. Some people think violence is necessary, some people don’t.
MLK did his best to be the change he wanted to see. Not everybody listened and he isn’t responsible for everyone’s actions. There is no mistaking that many in power found MLK to be a threat… why was he seen as dangerous though? Why was he targeted so viciously if he only championed nonviolence and civil disobedience?
The rich and powerful do not want people who bridge gaps and advocate joining hands in solidarity, that’s why. We are far easier to control and lord over when we are fighting each other, especially over differences and inconsequential things.
That’s true, they likely have the ability to kill us all at this point. But if so, then they’ve patched the last hole of resistance that the common people had to fight back. It’s either try and maybe succeed, or don’t try and definitely fail. There’s a reason we have a right to bear arms, and it’s because bearing arms is the only way to fight back against a government that no longer cares about upholding its own laws and ideals to protect the people.
From my perspective, the only way to convince them to not kill us all is if we promise we won’t put them on the chopping block.
Am I working against anyone? No, but I really don’t want to see this planet turn into a giant bloodbath. I think nonviolence, positive action, and a laser focus on solutions is the only way to move forward — and yes, I have wrestled with the viewpoint you are representing for many years.
I definitely don’t approve of an armed rebellion because I know how quickly things can turn to real violence when people are primed for it. The mainstream media is prepared to stir the pot and create a perception of chaos or push whatever narrative that serves capital — and as you pointed out; plenty of people are willing to accept money and play agent provocateur.
Just as our country created an excuse to use atomic bombs on Japan, I’d reason that if violence escalated to a degree that physically threatened the powerful, they would likely find excuses to use whatever else they’ve cooked up to maintain order against an armed rebellion. It probably wouldn’t be too dastardly, but it’d be easy to explain away to those who are not radicalized (and many likely wouldn’t participate in an armed rebellion). And how long would it take to raid their bunkers and defuse the threat that the most powerful pose? Decades?
I’d argue that if there is a very large, coherent, organized, and nonviolent movement - there would be no sense of normalcy anywhere if it was systematically disrupted violently. They can try all they want to make normal people look like terrorists and extremists, but the propaganda would likely be ineffective.
Like it or not, the rich still rely on us and they aren’t all entirely self-sufficient yet. They still want to be able to effortlessly reap all the abundance on this planet and they still need us to achieve that goal.
We just need to convince them that we the people can collectively be the best stewards of the planet, and that we don’t need their systems anymore to enable the best outcome for everyone to manifest. Maybe I’m naive too, but there has to be a way that doesn’t require us to resort to barbarism to achieve our goals.
Propaganda can and will villainize even the most peaceful of people if it serves the goals of the wealthy. It’s simply too powerful of a tool; a huge swath of the population will follow a narrative that’s being pushed hard enough, no matter how much it goes against their preconceived understanding of the world. Just look at how many people wholeheartedly support Israel’s ongoing genocide. Sure, there are absolutely examples of Palestine committing violence against Israel, but I have no doubt that even if they’d never raised a finger, the propaganda machine would still be convincing a huge portion of the country that Israel is right to massacre them.
I’m afraid of the government using its insane weapons technology and budget against us, but the real danger is that they won’t have to - that they’ll just tell the propaganda machine to make our own neighbors fight us, and we’ll kill ourselves to achieve nothing more than their amusement. It’s true that we might be able to appease them to prevent that outcome by promising we won’t put the wealthy on the chopping block, but at that point, we’re not people, we’re cattle. They’ll have no reason to treat us any better than North Korea treats its people. Our government would fully turn from an organization meant to serve its people, to one fully committed to using them as a resource to be exploited - capitalism’s final form.
I wholeheartedly believe that the only reason we’re not at that stage already is because they’re afraid that if they take that final step now some people might get violent and hurt some of the wealthy or their property. If they actually believed we’d sit down and allow them to enslave us, they’d be shipping in a bulk order of manacles from China right now. You’re absolutely right, I don’t believe we’d win, but I’d rather try to escape the fate of domestication than welcome it.
And what if a nonviolent movement randomly made all the wealthy explode? It’d be great, but not feasible. The reason the propaganda machine works is because it’s backed by an amount of money only the wealthy would be able to provide. For us to build one powerful enough to stand against theirs right under their noses within this surveillance state is the least likely scenario I’ve seen seriously brought up.
I am not saying compete. I am suggesting that this movement radicalizes the major arms of propaganda from within.
Not everybody is an evil villain in these organizations. There are likely many who are operating in good faith despite the reporting they do and the echo chamber they are apart of.
Popping their bubble sounds about as hard to do as convincing enough people to go die or face imprisonment to capture xyz institution with arms.
Listen, I am definitely not going to tell you to back down, to consent, to give up, and to be domesticated or be treated as cattle. Not at all. We don’t have to agree on the means of revolution, but we both likely agree on the immediate necessity of change.
Basically, it comes down to whether or not a meaningful amount of people can be radicalized without being personally impacted by the radicalizing force. When the government comes after its people with an armed secret police, the people who are worried they’ll be next are easily radicalized because they feel personally in danger.
The well-meaning members of the various branches of the media and education system that drives the propaganda machine are not directly in danger, at least not from that specific aspect of their lives. They may still be a marginalized race or sexuality who could be radicalized through that aspect, but those people are already being systematically removed from their impactful positions within society by DEI restrictions, likely specifically for that reason.
In the end, it will be a bunch of straight white people running the propaganda machine, who may be sympathetic toward the plight of their marginalized neighbors, but likely not enough to endanger themselves to try to fight back on their behalf. And by the time white people themselves are on the chopping block, there won’t be enough power left to wield against the tyrants if we aren’t fighting for it.
We can get people scared for their lives to band together and try to fight, but we can’t get people who are still holding out for this whole thing to “blow over” to risk it all to try to force it out. But everyone is inching toward that point of personal endangerment; if we can be strategic, maybe we can hold out on the fighting until enough people are personally affected enough to be radicalized that we form a real fighting force. That’s really the only way through I can see, and as I’ve said, it’s a long shot even then.
People are so conditioned by the idea that nonviolent change can be achieved that they will actively work against those who use the actual effective methods. Like crabs in a bucket we’ll doom ourselves to the boiling pot of water. The constitutional right to a peaceful protest doesn’t mean shit when the president has already dismissed the idea that he has to uphold the constitution. At this point it’s nothing more than words on parchment that they’re supposed to care about but don’t. Don’t bet your life on their adherence to it.
Nonviolent change only works if those in charge either care about us and want to improve our lives (they don’t) or they fear that not giving us what we want will hurt them somehow (it won’t if you fucking help them get rid of the ones willing to hurt them). Even if we achieve the fabled halting of the economy from so many people refusing to work that it can’t sustain itself, the rich will be the ones who starve last. There will always be people willing to do dirty work for evil men in exchange for gold and expensive baubles.
Such as?
It’s incredibly naive to think than an armed rebellion would succeed, considering the large technological gap of weaponry between the general populace and those that uphold the world order.
A peaceful protest that doesn’t have the risk of turning not so peaceful will just be ignored. The civil rights movement didn’t succeed because the government agreed with the protesters. It succeeded because the cities were under threat of being burned down. Everything you were taught about the civil rights movement was centered around ignoring that part.
Which notable leaders or major figures of the civil rights movement advocated for violence, threatened violence, or encouraged threats to achieve meaningful progress? What are some notable, pivotal events in the civil rights movement that were significant to history and were underscored by the threat of violence?
Personally, I feel that the civil rights movement was a significantly more polarized and divisive time for the American people. The movement we need today has significantly less people standing in the way from my perspective.
Not what I actually said. I was talking about protests. The leaders, even if they know violence might be necessary, will not openly advocate for it. They will speak with a degree of plausible deniability. Or they’re John Brown.
What is your perspective worth? Where you there in the 60s? From an academic perspective, it looks the same.
In your eyes, what protests or events in the civil rights movement (that generally threatened violence or resulted in violence) led to a significant shift or significant movement?
I was expecting you to fill the gap in my American public school education. You can also direct me to a book or any resources that help me to understand your perspective better, particularly from a historical standpoint.
My perspective is worth just as much as anybody else’s. Everybody who cares about the present and future likely wants solutions and change in some form or another. Some people think violence is necessary, some people don’t.
MLK did his best to be the change he wanted to see. Not everybody listened and he isn’t responsible for everyone’s actions. There is no mistaking that many in power found MLK to be a threat… why was he seen as dangerous though? Why was he targeted so viciously if he only championed nonviolence and civil disobedience?
The rich and powerful do not want people who bridge gaps and advocate joining hands in solidarity, that’s why. We are far easier to control and lord over when we are fighting each other, especially over differences and inconsequential things.
That’s true, they likely have the ability to kill us all at this point. But if so, then they’ve patched the last hole of resistance that the common people had to fight back. It’s either try and maybe succeed, or don’t try and definitely fail. There’s a reason we have a right to bear arms, and it’s because bearing arms is the only way to fight back against a government that no longer cares about upholding its own laws and ideals to protect the people.
From my perspective, the only way to convince them to not kill us all is if we promise we won’t put them on the chopping block.
Am I working against anyone? No, but I really don’t want to see this planet turn into a giant bloodbath. I think nonviolence, positive action, and a laser focus on solutions is the only way to move forward — and yes, I have wrestled with the viewpoint you are representing for many years.
I definitely don’t approve of an armed rebellion because I know how quickly things can turn to real violence when people are primed for it. The mainstream media is prepared to stir the pot and create a perception of chaos or push whatever narrative that serves capital — and as you pointed out; plenty of people are willing to accept money and play agent provocateur.
Just as our country created an excuse to use atomic bombs on Japan, I’d reason that if violence escalated to a degree that physically threatened the powerful, they would likely find excuses to use whatever else they’ve cooked up to maintain order against an armed rebellion. It probably wouldn’t be too dastardly, but it’d be easy to explain away to those who are not radicalized (and many likely wouldn’t participate in an armed rebellion). And how long would it take to raid their bunkers and defuse the threat that the most powerful pose? Decades?
I’d argue that if there is a very large, coherent, organized, and nonviolent movement - there would be no sense of normalcy anywhere if it was systematically disrupted violently. They can try all they want to make normal people look like terrorists and extremists, but the propaganda would likely be ineffective.
Like it or not, the rich still rely on us and they aren’t all entirely self-sufficient yet. They still want to be able to effortlessly reap all the abundance on this planet and they still need us to achieve that goal.
We just need to convince them that we the people can collectively be the best stewards of the planet, and that we don’t need their systems anymore to enable the best outcome for everyone to manifest. Maybe I’m naive too, but there has to be a way that doesn’t require us to resort to barbarism to achieve our goals.
Propaganda can and will villainize even the most peaceful of people if it serves the goals of the wealthy. It’s simply too powerful of a tool; a huge swath of the population will follow a narrative that’s being pushed hard enough, no matter how much it goes against their preconceived understanding of the world. Just look at how many people wholeheartedly support Israel’s ongoing genocide. Sure, there are absolutely examples of Palestine committing violence against Israel, but I have no doubt that even if they’d never raised a finger, the propaganda machine would still be convincing a huge portion of the country that Israel is right to massacre them.
I’m afraid of the government using its insane weapons technology and budget against us, but the real danger is that they won’t have to - that they’ll just tell the propaganda machine to make our own neighbors fight us, and we’ll kill ourselves to achieve nothing more than their amusement. It’s true that we might be able to appease them to prevent that outcome by promising we won’t put the wealthy on the chopping block, but at that point, we’re not people, we’re cattle. They’ll have no reason to treat us any better than North Korea treats its people. Our government would fully turn from an organization meant to serve its people, to one fully committed to using them as a resource to be exploited - capitalism’s final form.
I wholeheartedly believe that the only reason we’re not at that stage already is because they’re afraid that if they take that final step now some people might get violent and hurt some of the wealthy or their property. If they actually believed we’d sit down and allow them to enslave us, they’d be shipping in a bulk order of manacles from China right now. You’re absolutely right, I don’t believe we’d win, but I’d rather try to escape the fate of domestication than welcome it.
What if a nonviolent movement included radicalizing the tools of propaganda and the people behind these apparatuses as one of its primary focuses?
And what if a nonviolent movement randomly made all the wealthy explode? It’d be great, but not feasible. The reason the propaganda machine works is because it’s backed by an amount of money only the wealthy would be able to provide. For us to build one powerful enough to stand against theirs right under their noses within this surveillance state is the least likely scenario I’ve seen seriously brought up.
I am not saying compete. I am suggesting that this movement radicalizes the major arms of propaganda from within.
Not everybody is an evil villain in these organizations. There are likely many who are operating in good faith despite the reporting they do and the echo chamber they are apart of.
Popping their bubble sounds about as hard to do as convincing enough people to go die or face imprisonment to capture xyz institution with arms.
Listen, I am definitely not going to tell you to back down, to consent, to give up, and to be domesticated or be treated as cattle. Not at all. We don’t have to agree on the means of revolution, but we both likely agree on the immediate necessity of change.
Basically, it comes down to whether or not a meaningful amount of people can be radicalized without being personally impacted by the radicalizing force. When the government comes after its people with an armed secret police, the people who are worried they’ll be next are easily radicalized because they feel personally in danger.
The well-meaning members of the various branches of the media and education system that drives the propaganda machine are not directly in danger, at least not from that specific aspect of their lives. They may still be a marginalized race or sexuality who could be radicalized through that aspect, but those people are already being systematically removed from their impactful positions within society by DEI restrictions, likely specifically for that reason.
In the end, it will be a bunch of straight white people running the propaganda machine, who may be sympathetic toward the plight of their marginalized neighbors, but likely not enough to endanger themselves to try to fight back on their behalf. And by the time white people themselves are on the chopping block, there won’t be enough power left to wield against the tyrants if we aren’t fighting for it.
We can get people scared for their lives to band together and try to fight, but we can’t get people who are still holding out for this whole thing to “blow over” to risk it all to try to force it out. But everyone is inching toward that point of personal endangerment; if we can be strategic, maybe we can hold out on the fighting until enough people are personally affected enough to be radicalized that we form a real fighting force. That’s really the only way through I can see, and as I’ve said, it’s a long shot even then.
Right, guerilla tactics could never work against a technologically advanced US and there is definitely no historic precedent for this.