This is a well-researched article, tightly argued even by the standards of the AEP. It shows that it is possible to be nuanced while still strongly coming out in favor (or really against) a position.
The "non-violence industrial complex" shifts all the responsibility on violent tactics on the resistance, while treating the tactics of those who actually hold most of the guns as an outcome variable. Wasn't it Kennedy himself who mumbled: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable"?
I do remember The Great March of Return (2018) eventually breaking through in the Western European media: the coverage was generally critical if sanitized on Israeli violence. Similar to prior bombing wars on Gaza there simply was no way to sugar-coat this. Also, there was no counter-narrative.
Now that we have a framework set by October 7th, I have yet to see a single mention of The Great March of Return by the same journalists who covered it only 5 years ago. Presumably it would become too obvious that it was the Israeli government under the same prime minister that made peaceful revolution impossible and specifically started the clock on inevitable violent revolution.
Instead, at the liberal end of the spectrum, we are now sometimes treated to a mention of 1948 as the starting point of mindless cycles of violence while wringing our hands at the poor civilians who are suffering in the passive voice.
Leaving a link to my developing reflections as an ethnic Mennonite who’s come to a Euraisionish Orthodox Christian worldview. I’m hoping to engage some Mennonite’s working on settler/indigenous relations. http://simp.ly/publish/NB0W3c
Violence against private property hits monopolist where it hurts the most, but what still surprises me is even in the days of labour union violence of the 19th and early 20th century how board of director meetings were allowed to proceed without empty seats.
Certainly if someone was purposefully trying to harm or even kill me and my family through economic means or for economic reasons, then why would I just sit on my hands? Seems only the Anarchist or the Bolsheviks had the gumption, the unions are too much a part of the system -- particularly in the UK, Germany, and USA.
The courts and laws were written by the capitalist to legalize their violence, but trial by jury is an admission that the laws are unjust and must be tempered if the population is to be kept civil, and being part of the masses offers the opportunity for anonymity.
Thanks for the reminder, I had wanted to come back and add more but life got in the way.
For some reason just mentioning Dancing With Bears gets my comments on YouTube taken down, so I thought I'd put this here and see if it's Alphabet Censorship or other causes.
This is a well-researched article, tightly argued even by the standards of the AEP. It shows that it is possible to be nuanced while still strongly coming out in favor (or really against) a position.
The "non-violence industrial complex" shifts all the responsibility on violent tactics on the resistance, while treating the tactics of those who actually hold most of the guns as an outcome variable. Wasn't it Kennedy himself who mumbled: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable"?
I do remember The Great March of Return (2018) eventually breaking through in the Western European media: the coverage was generally critical if sanitized on Israeli violence. Similar to prior bombing wars on Gaza there simply was no way to sugar-coat this. Also, there was no counter-narrative.
Now that we have a framework set by October 7th, I have yet to see a single mention of The Great March of Return by the same journalists who covered it only 5 years ago. Presumably it would become too obvious that it was the Israeli government under the same prime minister that made peaceful revolution impossible and specifically started the clock on inevitable violent revolution.
Instead, at the liberal end of the spectrum, we are now sometimes treated to a mention of 1948 as the starting point of mindless cycles of violence while wringing our hands at the poor civilians who are suffering in the passive voice.
Leaving a link to my developing reflections as an ethnic Mennonite who’s come to a Euraisionish Orthodox Christian worldview. I’m hoping to engage some Mennonite’s working on settler/indigenous relations. http://simp.ly/publish/NB0W3c
Violence against private property hits monopolist where it hurts the most, but what still surprises me is even in the days of labour union violence of the 19th and early 20th century how board of director meetings were allowed to proceed without empty seats.
Certainly if someone was purposefully trying to harm or even kill me and my family through economic means or for economic reasons, then why would I just sit on my hands? Seems only the Anarchist or the Bolsheviks had the gumption, the unions are too much a part of the system -- particularly in the UK, Germany, and USA.
The courts and laws were written by the capitalist to legalize their violence, but trial by jury is an admission that the laws are unjust and must be tempered if the population is to be kept civil, and being part of the masses offers the opportunity for anonymity.
Thanks for the reminder, I had wanted to come back and add more but life got in the way.
https://johnhelmer.net/canada-is-losing-its-war-against-russia-so-it-has-threatened-senior-army-officers-with-court-martial-for-disloyalty/
For some reason just mentioning Dancing With Bears gets my comments on YouTube taken down, so I thought I'd put this here and see if it's Alphabet Censorship or other causes.