Why did anarchists stop assassinating people

Why did anarchists stop assassinating people

The state got more powerful.

I fear now cyberpunk will become a reality.

Luckily, I program factory hardware (like the programs that control plasma cutters n sheit) so maybe I'll be good in the cyberpunk world.

They realized people in governments were just benefitting off of them and now they just rage against the machine by being neets.

Every time they did it, the public attitude swung further against them. They realised that "propaganda of the deed" is self-defeating.

I never got this. I'd be jumping for joy if a Congressmen was assassinated tomorrow, even one that I whole-heartedly supported and voted for. I mean, he's still a politician at the end of the day.

Sort of like this The individual terrorism can't change the society, which is not as radicalised in the modern first- and second-world countries as it was back then.

They fell for the NAP meme

Not really, it's just pacifism.

I fucking hate anarcho-pacifists. I mean, guys like Ghandi are cool because they're totally up for violence, they just would rather try non-violence first. Diversity of tactics is best here.

Not-aligned politics? New Allied Pact?

>guys like Ghandi are cool because they're totally up for violence, they just would rather try non-violence first
Ghandi has achieved nothing and the non-violence doesn't work, unless it touches the economics.

I know, I was just talking about his ideology of non-violence.

Most people aren't sociopaths.

In fact, Ghandi would be satisfied with India staying as a dominion, so his pals' financial interests would be less harmed by british rule

That's how it works.
>you're killing a guy
>state propaganda makes him a saint and you're worse than Hitler
>the state hardens the laws so the life becomes harder and the blame is on you

Non-Aggression Policy. It's the idea that so long as you don't initiate violence against others, anything goes. The problem, of course, is in defining "violence". An-Caps equate theft to an act of violence, considering property as an extension of the person. Commies disagree, seeing property as naturally belonging to society. As a result, all the An-Caps autistic screeching about MUH NAP amounts to nothing more than begging the question.

>It's the idea that so long as you don't initiate violence against others, anything goes.
Well, that's really an idea of questionable value.

Well it's a very simplistic approach to morality but then anarchism is a profoundly flawed idea no matter what flavor of it you subscribe to.

WWI

not all anarchists subscribe to the NAP. It's only recently, in fact. Mainstream culture ruined it's image .Hippies kinda made anarchism popular as a pacifist movement, punks made anarchism popular again as a violent, chaotic movement, and now anarchism is so muddied that most people's conception of it is the disgusting, bullied piece of shit that came out of all that ideological turmoil.

The mice which helplessly find themselves between the cats teeth acquire no merit from their enforced sacrifice.

Mahatma Gandhi

Give me a rundown of all the most ebin anarchist assassinations, Veeky Forums

Emperor Janmejay ascended to the throne of Hastinapura upon the death of his father Parikshit. According to legend, Parikshit, the lone descendant of the House of Pandu, had died of snakebite. He had been cursed by a sage to die so, the curse having been consummated by the serpent-chieftain Takshak.

Janmejay bore a deep grudge against the serpents for this act, and thus decided to wipe them out altogether. He attempted this by performing a great Sarpa satra - a sacrifice that would destroy all living serpents.

Why kill the president when they'll just replace him with some new guy?

An expert has stated that the latest bog body found in Ireland has proven that belief that the Celts ritually sacrificed their kings to the Gods.

The body also proves they underwent horrible deaths, if the times turned bad under their reign.

The latest Iron Age bog body dating back to at least 2,000 BC was discovered near Portlaoise in the Irish midlands by an alert bog worker and it bears the same hallmarks of ritual torture that two other famous bodies have.

1890s
assasination of french president carnot, assassination of italian king umberto i, assassination of american president william mckinley
can't think of anything else

woops umberto was 1900, mckinley was 1901

They nailed the czar too.

That was the first big one.

Tsar was killed by pre-marxist socialists. Anarchists were also doing some shit, but they weren't very successful

>2,000 BC

So before the Celts, then?

basically this, nowadays most real non false flag terrorist attempts are stopped in the making, and succeding means having a lot of cash for the equipment to stay out of the grid.

As anarchists dont have money, they are unable to make anything

THE final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants...