The last few days have seen protests at a level of emotion not seen since the BLM protests last summer. In both circumstances, the participants felt they were fighting injustice. What's your take?
Note: please do not consider this question nor any discussion in this thread as inciting violence of any kind or time.
If your life faces serious immediate danger (in other words someone attempting to terminate your existence), then violent actions would be warranted. In the cases of the BLM and DC Capitol riots, violence was not necessary, and the police would not have responded as they did had the protesters remained peaceful.
According to the U.N. millions people could die because of the policies Bidden proposes that could reverse a 20 year trend of reduced poverty and better standards of living around the world. The economy as it turns out is far more complicated and fragile than the left understands. It is no coincidence that as capitalism has expanded so has the quality of life for millions.
"David Beasley, Executive Director of the World Food Programme (WFP), warned of alarming global hunger and food insecurity, with the number of people “marching towards starvation” spiking from 135 million to 270 million as the pandemic unfolded. He stressed that 2021 will be catastrophic. “Famine is literally on the horizon and we are talking about the next few months,” he said. Noting how the WFP stepped in to deliver aid when the global airline industry shut down at the start of the pandemic, he warned anew that 2021 risks becoming the worst humanitarian crisis year since the founding of the United Nations, “and we will have to step up”.
Striking a similar note, Mark Lowcock, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, said that in the absence of humanitarian assistance the lives of 235 million people are at stake — a 40 per cent increase, with poverty rising for the first time in 20 years while life expectancy will fall. It would be a significant achievement to avert a major famine. Despite $4 billion raised so far for the Global Humanitarian Response Plan for COVID-19, and some $2 billion distributed in social protection payments, the difference being made is much too small in relation to the challenge. The vaccine rollout must be done right. “Let’s not finance vaccines at the expense of food security programmes or routine vaccinations. That would make things worse,” he warned."
If Stalin was your president and Hitler was your vice president, hypothetically speaking, knowing the history books.... would you even ask that question?
George Orwell once said that the “English intelligentsia…can swallow totalitarianism because they have no experience of anything except liberalism…So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” Having experienced the reality of totalitarianism first-hand, Orwell knew all too well the ways in which people far removed from it employ “soothing phrases” to disguise more sinister ends. Of course, he would later coin the term “Newspeak” in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). This was the totalitarian language created to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism under Big Brother.
“The heirs of the French, English, and American revolutions had partly believed in their own phrases about the rights of man, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the like, and have even allowed their conduct to be influenced by them to some extent. But by the fourth decade of the twentieth century all the main currents of political thought were authoritarian. The earthly paradise had been discredited at exactly the moment when it became realizable. Every new political theory, by whatever name it called itself, led back to hierarchy and regimentation. And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years — imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages, and the deportation of whole populations — not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive.”“Who controls the past controls the future.
Who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
"Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?"
How about self protection. The governments around the world are now technocratic communists and they will play a S/M game with their own people because they have been recruited into globalists Great Reset movements. There are few exceptions and off course governments will fight each other over who gets to be head of the world..... but they will oppress and sibilance anyone who oppose them in the process. Form medical experiments we are experiencing now, to lockdowns like we are all criminals, to day light robbery of your livelihood, to every other vile thing you can think off.
There is no moral safe guard or legal safe guard that applies to this enormous uncheck power. They are drunk on their own power and they can't help themselves , they want more power. Before their own hubris destroyed them , you will see violence and more violence.
The idea that there is some kind of position where you can virtue signal by saying I denounce violence, is naive at best. There is no such position. Communists do not care. They will send in the tanks.
BLM and Antifa that was state sponsored, trained and protected. Storming the capital, was done by payed agitators to set a trap and open door for oppression. People fell for the bait and heard mentality and adrenaline rush and confession did the rest.
You have to understand you are dealing with globalists technocratic communists. A private/public partnership. Who enable the mini tyrants around the world to do their thing. Do not kid yourself. They will not back down and will increase the oppression. And they care nothing of your morals , because they have none. You can't appeal to the morals of those who spend a lifetime avoiding it. Read history of Communist countries and oppression. Understand what you are dealing with.
“Communism is as crude an attempt to explain society and the individual as if a surgeon were to perform his delicate operations with a meat ax. All that is subtle in human psychology and in the structure of society (which is even more complex), all of this is reduced to crude economic processes. The whole created being—man—is reduced to matter. It is characteristic that Communism is so devoid of arguments that it has none to advance against its opponents in our Communist countries. It lacks arguments and hence there is the club, the prison, the concentration camp, and insane asylums with forced confinement.” ― Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Warning to the West
“You have to understand the nature of Communism. The very ideology of Communism, all of Lenin's teachings, are that anyone who doesn't take what's lying in front of him is a fool If you can take it, do so. If you can attack, strike. But if there's a wall, retreat. The Communist leaders respect only firmness and have contempt for persons who continually give in to them.
All Communist Parties, upon attaining power, have become completely merciless. But at the stage before they achieve power, it is necessary to use disguises.
“It is astonishing that Communism has been writing about itself in the most open way, in black and white, for 125 years, and even more openly, more candidly in the beginning. The book Communist Manifesto, for instance, which everyone knows by name and which almost no one takes the trouble to read, contains even more terrible things than what has actually been done. It is perfectly amazing. The whole world can read, everyone is literate, yet somehow no one wants to understand. Humanity acts as if it does not understand what Communism is, as if it does not want to understand, is not capable of understanding.” ― Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Warning to the West
"Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?"
Think of it like this. You are here able to express your opinion because someone long ago fought a war to make it possible for you to have that privilege. Now the generations have forgotten that. And they will be reminded about the effectiveness of violence as a tool of oppression and as a tool against oppression.... until they learn that time when talking solved anything is long gone. You can't shake hands with clinched fist. And those oppressing you are not like British Empire who has some moral left. These are communists. What Ghandi did to British, does not work against this enemey.
The only reason you have not seen tanks yet, is because they could do it without them. But if they fear they can't , tanks will be rolling. I guarantee you that. You may not want violence, but violent people want you and your total and complete submission. What do you do about it? Its up to you. But some will have to fight with guns and fists and others with pen, brush, keyboard and music. But oppression will increase and the communists regimes do not stop because they are so paranoid that they won't give you an inch if they are not pushed backed.
Look at CCP last few months in China. That is what is being exported around the world. Lockdowns? It started in China, now its worldview. What else do you think will be adopted by communism?
"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them." - Assata Shakur
Freedom is never given; it is won. – A. Philip Randolph
I'm not a violent person. I would become a violent person to protect my family and loved ones from physical harm. I might even become violent to protect a stranger from physical harm. -- And I'd be proud of myself in any of those circumstances!
Hypothetically, I might also become violent as an emotional response, if provoked. For example, if someone tried to rob me, I might become enraged and resort to violence. --But in that scenario, I wouldn't be proud of myself. I think that kind of emotional response is understandable... but it's not the right course to take.
I don't know where my line is. Certainly physical defense of myself and my close family and friends. Certainly not to impose my will on someone else who isn't a physical threat me.
But in between those? I don't know, and I fear to find out. I can only speculate. I am a former military officer. I was willing to use force to defend my country as part of an organized official system of national defense, subject to command authority, regulation, national policy, and laws of conflict.
I could see that happening in the future in some really bad ways. Were we to become parties to a hot civil war, of course I'd have to choose sides. Almost everyone would. Some feel they must already -- witness Antifa. It would be an organized system of community defense. What about offense? I don't know. Would a new civil war be fought to separate us into two independent nations? Fifty independent states? Some irregular balkanized areas? Or would it be to secure dominance of one group or set of ideologies over the entire country? Some of these seem a lot less attractive to me.
What is the end the violence would be aimed at? Would it be organized, directed at results, and restrained in scope? Would there be limits and self-policing against inevitable atrocities? I don't think the Left would restrain themselves. And I know human nature; the Right would be not clean either.
Nothing looks good ahead.
I'm still hoping against my pessimism for the future of the Republic, but it is already dead, and we're now arguing over the form of the funeral.
It seems that “Both Circumstances” are the SAME Actors ...
BLM and AntiFa showed up at the Trump/WDC Rally and “Acted Out” to simply pervert the message.
The Left’s Brown Shirt Kids (Blackout Boize) created an “Issue” and the Press and, unsurprisingly, the Leftist Politicians are “Making Hay” with it ... JUST AS INTENDED
This, in many instances, this would be called “A False Flag Incident”.
When they come to “Re-Educate” me ... try to Force Me to Eat Their Bullshit ... there WILL be “Justifiable Violence”. I am NOT Meekly going to go. There are WORSE Things than Dying.
Look up Genocide.
Resorting to violence for a political end is a very serious undertaking that requires much thought and recognition of the onerous responsibility being taken because it will involve the deaths of many people. Those considering such a move have to have a thorough understanding of the reasons for it. The reasons must be publicly open for all to understand. Our founding fathers did so with the Declaration of Independence. Would those who invaded the capitol be able to give a full explanation of their reasons for doing so? I don't think so. The answers would be in the area of "We have had enough and are fed up." or "The election was stolen" or "The liberals are going to take away all our rights." This is not a movie where the good-guys storm in, take over and everything is peaceful and everybody is happy.
It's hard to know where the line is, but was violence justified in the case of the Capitol riots? Certainly not. Was the BLM violence more justified? Maybe. The fact that people of color are denied equal protection under the law can hardly be debated. And it's gone on for a long time, so there is a frustration factor involved. Not even body cams and associated technologies designed to prevent bad behavior on the part of the police has seemed to help. So I guess it boils down to how effective the violence is in promoting change. In my view, it's not effective and the BLM movement would do well to change their approach along the lines of MLK or Ghandi.
As far as the Capitol rioters, they were protesting what they viewed as election fraud and a stolen election. Until this election, there was little talk of election fraud on the scale claimed in this election. So, it's not like these protesters had suffered years of mass injustice. Trump supporters soon realized that voter fraud, fraud committed by actual voters, was not going to lead to the massive rejection of votes necessary to overturn the election. So they quickly turned their ire to the election officials, which was the only way that massive voting fraud could have occurred, claiming that voting machines changed votes or that election workers counted votes they shouldn't have.
Unfortunately, election officials are in a unique position. They are elected or appointed for the very purpose of seeing to it that elections are conducted within the rules set by their legislatures. They are somewhat like bankers. If I see someone entering a bank with an empty bag and maybe a gun and see them come out with bag full, I might conclude that the bank was robbed. I call the police. The first thing the police do is ask the banker whether his bank has been robbed. If he says "no", there are only two possibilities. Either the bank was not robbed and the discussion ends or the banker is hiding something and maybe participating in the robbery or both.
It's the same with election officials. If you ask an election official if he had suffered massive fraud in his district and he says "no," there can be only two possible outcomes. One, there really wasn't massive fraud or two, he's covering it up or directly participating in it or both. It's hard to believe that fraud on the scale claimed couldn't be readily detected. If it couldn't, then what's the point of even trying? So, that leaves maleficence on the part of the election workers as the only possibility. The proper way to handle this is to take your evidence to the AG of the State involved and convince he or she to open an investigation and ultimately bring charges against the perpetrators of the fraud. Of course, the election workers charged are innocent until proven guilty. Then and only then could an election remedy even be discussed. I know of no election officials in any State that are being investigated or charged.
Instead, the lawyers for Trump claimed fraud on TV, in the Press and at campaign rallies, but would not do it in court. Courts can sanction lawyers who claim a crime has been committed but then provide no evidence to back their claims. Moreover, they asked the courts to disenfranchise massive numbers of voters because of actions by people who had nothing to do with them. Voters who believed and did cast a legal vote at the time they cast it were going to have their votes thrown out. The courts were not going to do that. It would have been a massive miscarriage of justice, completely unfair to the voter, who had nothing to do with the alleged fraud. A proper remedy was not going to be to throw out a massive number of votes as the administration wanted.
What's alarming in this case is the unrealistic expectations on the part of Trump supporters, who understand little of their plight, and their easy propensity for being duped into thinking that they have suffered some grave injustice. It should be alarming to us all.
When is violence OK? Bellum Justum -
2020 BLM violence is much in part a symptom of COVID lockdowns. The Occupy Capitol violence is a symptom of election fraud (alleged and real) and COVID lockdowns.
Give me hope
Force may be used in self-defence only.
Incidentally, I think it is necessary to make a clear distinction between "genuine protesters" who are law-abiding citizens and respect peaceful protests and "mob protesters" who are prepared to act unlawfully, not to mention using violence. Also, they may be on the same side but I think that the genuine protesters should be honest and brave enough to condemn the mob protesters for their unlawful actions and not justifying or defending them.
Your questions lately seem to be more divisive than purely inquisitive.
Level of injustice? Blm protests?
First, it’s disingenuous to say the burning, looting, destruction, injuries and even deaths during blm “protests” were anything at all similar to the march in Washington. Even if the suspected antifa morons were in fact Trump supporters, the level of destruction cannot be compared.
Second, a stolen election is the most egregious act upon ALL citizens of the country.
Warranted? I wrote a post about this, in IDW/Slug. Whether it's too much alcohol, too much abuse, a fondness for abuse, hurt feelings, a dangerous situation, political differences, political zealotry, righteousness, fear --- any stressor has the potential to trigger violence. It's all in the application and the dose. When that happens, forget the rightness or wrongness of it, forget Good and Evil---we're in the realm of inevitabilities.
Political violence is something I've been extremely confused on, especially this past year. I don't understand the point at all. When protesters, all over the world, took to the streets to protest police brutality, the first thing I thought was "why" and "I don't understand". When I saw the majority of MSM and Democratic politicians downplaying the riots, I was baffled.
So, the beginning of 2020 I opened up my first Twitter account. It was like looking at a completely different America than the one I live in, good and bad. I also got a Slug account because I wanted to actually understand the news. Before the mass protests and COVID, I wasn't online much at all, and I never dug into politics via social media before, so I really had no idea how to navigate it or even fully understood the language used.
My perspective may be limited, considering it's coming from a rather narrow period of time. I think individually, we aren't that much different from one another. So, I don't understand the tribalism or extremist behaviors that pit us against one another, rather than having an actual conversation or debate. It's strange.
After the events that unfolded Jan 6, Twitter and Parler are being flooded with very heated "us v them" takes. There is real fear of those who exist in our country that don't share the same ideologies. I don't think it's enough to say "half" are violent, but half of our population is absolutely going to be affected greatly depending on which direction out political representatives choose to take. So far, the Democrats have the wheel, and they are turning very sharply to the left.
Violence is never warranted. This may be overly simplistic, but it's just the way I feel. However, violence has been has been perceived as warrented if it's for a good cause. Police brutality is a good cause to protest. However, many of our politicians have skated around the inevitable violence that comes from prolonged protests. A free and fair election is a good cause to protest. However, many politicians have skated around the very real possibility that this could get violent.
I'm concerned how political violence is not only increasing, it's almost normalized, at least from what I can ascertain online. Portland is... oof. I mean, violence isn't the answer, but placating to violent offenders is much worse.
Again, I'm also just trying to wrap my head around it all. I'm not in any way sure one way or another. I'm more than willing to say "I don't get it". I've been saying this for the last 5+ years. It's just I haven't actually tried to understand until a little over a year ago.
I don't think I have more to add than what others have already said in the replies! For defense, justifiably. And as I mentioned in my reply to your previous question, I'm a reformist, until it's not possible and you reach the point when you have to defend, the point of why the 2nd amendment exists. Which I'm not sure we are at now!