This is the last post I'm going to make on this forum, basically because this thread is more painful to witness than I care to ever have to rehearse again. It's not a matter of aggreeing or disagreeing, but...just...I don't want to have to look at this shit.
Most of your posts above are just...I don't want to know these things about you all, or about any humans, what your posts reveal.
To put it in a nutshell, most of you think you're "not racist." It's obvious you are. Or, or and/or, even worse, you're fucking stupid beyond all hope of redemption.
Non-specific to "antifa" whatever you all think "they" are, here is one historical fact that all adults should take into account when there is any form of large-scale social unrest taking place: there has never been a large-scale political movement in contemporary (say, post-Industrial Revolution, for the sake of not citing "all of human...") history where meaningful *and codified* changes took place where the objection of the minority was not backed by violent unrest.
There's a reason you/we have an MLK day, and it isn't that MLK deserved or didn't deserve one. It's that there was, in the time there was a real MLK, also a "Black Power" movement and violent (or more importantly potentially violent) threat from other factions that motivated congress and elites to push for a public sanctifying of MLK, both in his time and after. This is in the congressional minutes. You can look for it there, and find it. Congressmen literally declared in open session that MLK needed to be championed because if he wasn't the alternative was having to deal with black militancy on a more equal playing field with non-violent protest. It's spoken in the minutes, specifically, that the US had to back and champion MLK, and make concessions to MLK, because the alternative consequence was violent uprising.
Sure, in the 70s, there was a lot of talk about boycotts and how powerful they were, etc.. The reality is when it came to lawmakers, they were moved by the threat of violent uprising, not boycotts.
The same basic reality's in place for Ghandi/Netaji, every single effective progressive, humanistic, social justice movement in the history of modern civilization. Most Americans don't know that large segments of Indian nationals hate Ghandi because of how he rejected Netaji, and they blame him for the incomplete gains of Indian nationals in that period. That's because Americans are fuckin ignorant, and they like themselves that way.
Corrupt power will not stop doing what it does without the threat of consequences -- it won't be guided by ethical or moral principle, or any form of "fair play" impulse; that's why it's called corrupt.
Non-violent resistance advocates have to resent, reject and even hate violent factions who want the same changes they want. Advocates of violence have to view those people as at best naive, at worst dangerously ignorant self-defeatists. That's how resistance works.
In the absence of a violent faction, non-violent resistance basically doesn't work, and never has.
I'm not championing violence. But absolutely I believe in and want social justice -- before friendship, before comfort, before fuckin yummy snacks of all kinds.
It doesn't matter whether you like or hate violent resistance; its necessity for social change is an unfortunate historical fact.
Corrupt people do not care if they're wrong or right (though they always believe they're right, and will form their reality to fit their beliefs). They only care if they "win." That is where violence comes in.
Most of you realize you are generally led, and ruled, for the most part, by corrupt interests.
What you don't realize is that mostly your views coincide with your rulers -- which isn't an accident -- that you hate resistance to your rulers more than you hate the rulers (and you hate the rulers quite a lot), and that while you might not like it there will be no meaningful change without the threat of violence.
Again, I'm not championing the violence. I'm just pointing out that it's unavoidable in any successful social justice movement.
If there is no violent faction, there is no meaningful -- "meaningful" meaning changes to institutions, codified law, and policy on how that law is exercised -- resistance without a threat of violence.
You don't have to like it or hate it. You can do either. But if you think real change will happen without the threat of violence, you don't know the history of humans on earth, during your own lifetime or any other.
So, you kind of have to question, if you can accept my main claim, what you really are against if you find yourself very invested in hating violent resistance. If no "real change" is possible without violent resistance, are you really against violence, or are you against "real change?"
Most of you are much more upset by "antifa" than any violence carried out by white nationalist groups. I mean, where is the "Tara LaRosa Calls Out Neo-Nazis and The Challenge Gets Accepted" threads, lol.
In closing, fuck you all.
Well, not all of you.
Some of you are ok. You know who you are. Many of you really are not, not least of all because even if you know better you humor the ones that aren't OK because virtual friendship means more to you than principles or truthfulness. They take this for validation.
Fuck that. There's no boosheet in jiu jitsu, right? That's kind of what we're supposed to love about fighting, those of us to study it. War is better: 1) the good, non-violent cop on the one hand and 2) the hated violent/bad-cop on the other (the one who, sometimes knowingly, takes one for the team).
Anyhow again: dipshits (this means you RVD): fuck you. It should give me satisfaction that you'll die as stupid as you are today, but it doesn't.
Non-dipshits: peace unto you, fer reals. I am grateful for you, and have enjoyed the board while it lasted, and while it was good. I don't think it is now. Lates.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56164507/GettyImages_830696156.0.jpg)
Valid point.
