Nonviolence

Just started reading pic related. What does Veeky Forums think of nonviolent resistance, its pragmatism (or lack of), and its moral underpinnings?

Also has anyone read pic related?

Have not read the book; but in my opinion we are in a total war of each against all and if violence is called for i won't hesitate bitch.

Solely function within liberal democratic hegemony, will soon be curious cultural artefact of decadent, entitled age.

Elaborate on it as a soon-to-be cultural artifact

You'll get slapped by the first cop in riot armor you see and cry at home about how your voice is being stomped out

Feel like its more used to bait a violent reaction which just leads to chaos.

Actually I was lying, I don't believe a post-liberal culture will emerge (or at least it will not live long enough to musealize) as the extinction of the human species and possible release from the flesh prison is imminent.

Baiting is pretty much the entire point. There's an injustice, a protest from the underclass, a (violent) reaction from the overclass. Then the middle people, the ones undecided, join in the protest out of moral outrage. Repeat till change is effected.

oh ok cool

>moral outrage
Lol. Why do you think "diversity" is pushed so hard? An atomized population divided amongst itself will never unite into any kind of cohesive front.

Nonviolent resistance is only a meme because of Ghandi, who had the minor advantage of opposing the most gentle, benevolent empire in history, (compare the brits to the mongols or romans), that was already weakened, in a country that revered him as a near-divinity due to his brahmin caste.

It only "worked" in the American civil rights movement because the powers that be were already determined on a course of action. MLK was basically a staged morality play.

“Nothing was ever solved by non-violence.” - Homer Simpson

Theyre def not falling for that shit in the west anymore. Just let the protestors do whatever the fuck about their nonissue and cause division amongst the peasantry and not directed toward yourself.

>calls it a meme
>Ghandi
>unaware of massacre of Amristar and basic civil rights history

yeah, they were totally on board user. like the time the fbi sent him a fucking letter urging immediate suicide

if you ever see a story where the weak oppressed group are beating the strong oppressors, somebody is lying to you. That doesn't happen outside of fairy tales

Great platitude, user. Do you have anything to support that the widely-recorded and -reported Massacre of Amristar didn't happen? Or the marches and legislation from the civil rights era?

While it is the superior moral choice, there is a time and place for everything.

I'm just explaining to you that you have been memed if you believe things like 'civil rights history'

>
Massacre of Amristar

>an Indian independence activist from Sunam who had witnessed the events in Amritsar and had himself been wounded, shot and killed Michael O'Dwyer, the British Lieutenant-Governor of Punjab at the time of the massacre

WOW SO NONVIOLENT MUCH PEACEFUL

I was responding to user saying the British Empire was the most "gentle, benevolent empire in history."

Again, compare the British empire to any other large empire.

You are totally missing the point.

Even if the British Empire was the most relatively humane, that does not change the fact that it depleted India for hundreds of years and that Amristar (among other offenses) took place.

It'd be like if I said since you're able to operate a computer, you're obviously not retarded.

In reality, you are retarded, even if you're relatively less retarded than someone who cannot operate a computer.

Secular nonviolence makes no sense. Christian one does, but up to a point, when it becomes a false idol.

Tolstoy's later works have a lot of his thoughts on the topic, if you're interested. It paints a good picture of a person being so deeply inspired by the Sermon on the Mount that he chooses to ignore everything else in the bible, including God himself.

>liberal democratic hegemony
>like India

>nonviolence

Give me a break. This a textbook violation of the NAP.

This, non-violence is only possible in a nearly-just state where the populous has a concept of justice but has yet to be exposed to the injustice you're attempting to highlight. Try non-violent resistance in Soviet Russia, for example, and you'd have been fucked up before you stepped out the door.

>implying the british empire was not liberal-democratic

1. nonviolence should be paramount
2. nonviolence doesn't work when the opponent is willing to kill you.

Read some of the shit Hoover did during the rights movement, holy fuck.

>implying the British Empire gave equal treatment to people in India as it did to people in London