Agreed.

There's a reason why you never hear about the Battle of Blair Mountain or Haymarket Square. It's why your education focuses on MLK instead of Malcolm X, and why no school child has ever heard of Marsha P. Johnson.

Throwing bricks helps move progress along, but no one will teach that to you because the people in power don't want you to be thinking about kicking their asses. Hell, Luigi probably saved thousands of lives by scaring health care companies into looking past the profit motive for a few days and approving claims.

Also this prime example

It's not terrorism when the government does it.

Violence has no place in a democracy.

You are talking of the violence in the post-democracy kleptocracy you live it.

The Imperium of Man condemns all political violence.

:::spoiler spoiler

In the wake of the tragic assignation of a loyal advocate for the Imperium, Carolus Kirk, the High Lords of Terra have added their voices to those condemning all forms of political violence as a vile form of heresy which must be immediately purged through cleansing fire.

Although the Inquisition has yet to release details on the assassin's motivations, it is likely that he was under the influence of heresy, manipulated by either by xenos or the forces of Chaos. Heretical rumors that the shooter believed that Carolus himself was being manipulated by such forces are completely false. Carolus, who is survived by his wife and children, never once wavered in his loyal advocacy for the values of the Imperium, which he believed in to his core: hatred and intolerance to xenos and heretics of all kinds.

In brighter news, a dozen xenos worlds have been put to the torch leaving no survivors, as the Adeptus Astartes continue their heroic mission to eradicate all those who would stand against the Imperium and the absolute dominance of humanity.

Glory to the Emperor, and death to all those who celebrate political violence!

Violence (and the "might makes right, dog eat dog" elevation of it) IS the civilization.

Depends what you mean by preaching non-violence. If it includes conscientious objectors supporting other soldiers to quit, then I disagree. There’s plenty of that happening right now in the US, Russia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. They are the biggest threat to the state and to capitalism

Protests themselves are just us saying we're trying the peaceful option first. They hold no real power in their action except with the danger of violence.

They usually qualify it with the adjective "political violence" because most think the other types are just fine.

I see what you did there!

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

"when choosing between imperfect or horrible, choose neither, highlight the imperfections in the better option and keep your head high"

If you're not familiar with Saul's work, I encourage you to listen to his song List of Demands

So what they're saying is that they think the American Revolution was a bad thing?

Yes. It’s called the monopoly on violence, which means the state can use violence and you can’t.

Good to see Brother Saul still being as based as ever

Nonviolence does not mean passivity, it just means different tactics that allow for wider participation and doesn't give the regime and its hired goons an "easy out" by politically/socially/mentally legitimizing the counter-violence to repress the movement in order to maintain "law and order" and "protect" the rest of society from "hooligans"

Of course, nonviolence is not a foolproof method, it just has a better chance of succeeding. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIpgrZ8yS-Q)

"First, it must be emphasized that nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist. If one uses these methods because he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments of violence, he is not truly nonviolent. This is why Gandhi often said that if cowardice is the only alternative to violence, it is better to fight. He made this statement conscious of the fact that there is always another alternative: no individual or group need submit to any wrong, nor need they use violence to right the wrong; there is the way of nonviolent resistance. This is ultimately the way of the strong man. It is not a method of stagnant passivity. The phrase "passive resistance"; often gives the false impression that this is a sort of "do-nothing method" in which the resister quietly and passively accepts evil. But nothing is further from the truth. For while the nonviolent resister is passive in the sense that he is not physically aggressive toward his opponent, his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade his opponent that he is wrong. The method is passive physically, but strongly active spiritually. It is not passive non-resistance to evil, it is active nonviolent resistance to evil. A second basic fact that characterizes nonviolence is that it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through non-cooperation or boycotts, but he realizes that these are not ends in themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent. The end is redemption and reconciliation. The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness." (Martin Luther King, Jr., https://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/pilgrimage.php)

"Nonviolent campaigns have a participation advantage over violent insurgencies, which is an important factor in determining campaign outcomes. The moral, physical, informational, and commitment barriers to participation are much lower for nonviolent resistance than for violent insurgency. Higher levels of participation contribute to a number of mechanisms necessary for success, including enhanced resilience, higher probabilities of tactical innovation, expanded civic disruption (thereby raising the costs to the regime of maintaining the status quo), and loyalty shifts involving the opponent’s erstwhile [=previous] supporters, including members of the security forces. Mobilization among local supporters is a more reliable source of power than the support of external allies, which many violent campaigns must obtain to compensate for their lack of participants. Moreover, we find that the transitions that occur in the wake of successful nonviolent resistance movements create much more durable and internally peaceful democracies than transitions provoked by violent insurgencies. On the whole, nonviolent resistance campaigns are more effective in getting results and, once they have succeeded, more likely to establish democratic regimes with a lower probability of a relapse into civil war. [..] nonviolent campaigns facilitate the active participation of many more people than violent campaigns, thereby broadening the base of resistance and raising the costs to opponents of maintaining the status quo. The mass civilian participation in a nonviolent campaign is more likely to backfire in the face of repression, encourage loyalty shifts among regime supporters, and provide resistance leaders with a more diverse menu of tactical and strategic choices. To regime elites, those engaged in civil resistance are more likely to appear as credible negotiating partners than are violent insurgents" (Erica Chenoweth & Maria J. Stephan - Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic Of Nonviolent Conflict)

Targeting them where it really hurts, is also key in utilising the violence . We need to let systems that support them crumble. What do we need to tear down, to hurt them the most. Where do we best aim the destruction.

Oh hey, I know that guy!

... did a uh, somewhat prescient song a while back.

Gunshots by Computer

clown shit.

Preaching violence can also end up protecting the state, if the situation is one where nonviolence would have been more effective.