The Myth of Non-Violence

[6KILLER]

The Myth of Non-Violence

.
VIOLENCE, LIKE GUNS, IS A NEUTRAL TOOL USED BY GOOD AND EVIL MEN ALIKE to carry out their goals. Arguing about "good" violence as opposed to "bad" violence is an act of futility. Successful violence is defined as "good" by the victors while violence used by those who lose, be it for purposes of aggression or defense, whatever, is always defined as being "bad." That is simply the way it is. No amount of argument ever changes this fact, although it does try to disguise it.
Violence was used to form this country. George III just wouldn't step down from being king just because the Declaration of Independence asserted that the colonies had decided that they didn't consent to his further rule and he was now an illegitimate despot. Violence kept this country united when the South decided to go her own way. Violence maintains the current government. George Washington said that the essence of government was force. Force is useless unless it contains the threat of violence or fails to deliver upon that threat. And now that this country is decaying, the social order is falling apart, and no justice is to be found, expect a Golden Age of Violence to come about.
Count on it.
NON-VIOLENCE WOULD BE PREFERABLE. Sane people should be able to work out their differences without the need for bloodshed, express or implied. However, a policy of non-violence seldom, if ever, works.
The two times within this century when a supposed policy of "non-violence" worked were in Mohandas Gandhi's kicking the British out of India and the supposed triumph of Martin Luther King and desegregation. Neither policy was entirely successful and they only worked in their limited fashion because the following two prerequisites were present:
1.) The status quo is able to be reasoned with and retains some sense of decency.
Gandhi used his techniques against an English government which had promised to leave India if she helped England fight. While Gandhi was imprisoned a number of times by the British government, eventually Gandhi's demand that the Indians be master in their own house was met.
Let's say the Germans had won WWII and by conquest succeeded the English as rulers of India. Would there have been talk of non-violence if they had done with Hindus as they did with Jews? Of course not!
Now let's take Martin Luther King and his struggles with Southern whites for integration of the Negro into white society. Martin Luther King succeeded only because the early 1960's was a time when this country was willing to make some accommodation with allowing blacks to vote, desegregate educational facilities and public offices, and spend some political muscle into seeing that by dint of "interstate commerce" laws that private institutions were forced to integrate. The Southern political establishment and some of the white middle class were "soft" on the notion that it was time for the Negro to get some of his rights. They went along, although they complained aloud for public consumption.
One of the phrases in King's "I have a Dream" speech concerned how blacks had a "blank check" to cash in reparations due to white injustice against them. Such a phrase today would be laughed away today by rich and middle-class white Republicans tired of paying taxes for welfare programs. The time for such as Martin Luther King has long passed.
No, the South of the early and middle '60's was ripe for de jure Negro integration, as whites and blacks had been working and living close together for a hundred years and it was sensed that it was time to change the artificial, government-imposed conditions which held the blacks down. True integration proceeded farther and faster in the South than it did in Northern cities. Martin Luther King tried to help out Northern city blacks but failed. Chicago was not interested because Chicago was not ready to listen.
2.) There is a credible threat of violence to back up the protestations of non-violence.
White Englishmen were outnumbered by thousands to one by Indians. They realized that if the Indians decided to rise up and kill them all, the English were toast. The English remembered the Great Mutiny of 1857 and recognized that unless nuclear weapons were used, ten thousand trigger-fingers to one were hopeless odds. In addition to being too tired to maintain their Empire, the English no longer had enough of a technological edge to maintain it in the face of open hostility from the natives.
Martin Luther King and his bunch of black "Reverends" were quite adept at using militants like Malcom X, Stokely Carmichael, and the Black Panthers to play games of "good nigger -- bad nigger" against rich, soft, white authorities in the South. "Unless there is social justice NOW, them 'bad niggers' will riot, burn down and loot your stores and rape white wimmin!"
( I hear the same thing today from white folks about what "them niggers" are going to do if welfare checks are stopped. )
While some of the poor rednecks and Ku Kluckers would have loved to fight a race war, the Southern white establishment had far more to lose, including positions of influence over white and black alike. In the South, the blacks lived cheek and jowl with whites. In the North, blacks lived in discernible ghettoes or districts, and thus in case of racial war would be easier to contain. Southerners knew they were far more vulnerable, hence they had to come to some sort of accommodation.
So unless there are present in the current social situation the above two factors of open-minded decency on the part of the ruling status-quo and a credible threat of violence from the agitating change faction, any hope of accomplishing peaceful change through "civil disobedience" or "non-violent protest" is sheer fantasy. Idiotic, dangerous fantasy. Remember, violence is a tool, and tools are meant to be used.
IN FACT, VIOLENCE IS AT ITS MOST UNCONTROLLABLE whenever dishonorable people have a relative monopoly on violence and their victims believe in pacifism. Hence the slaughter of Jews by National Socialist Germans, wherein an orgy of bloodshed was engaged in by masochists and sadists feeding each other's sickness.
Violence is only able to understand Violence and usually only by methods of counting, be it the number of trigger-fingers aiming rifle barrels, or tanks, nuclear missiles, biological weapons, or whatever is the latest and greatest weapon of violence. The neutral tool of Violence has no good nature towards which to make moral appeal. Violence is only deterred by the presence of greater Violence.
So understanding these facts of life concerning both human nature and the uses of violence, for good people to eschew Violence merely assures that evil people will seek, then gain, an unobstructed monopoly on Violence. Once these evil people have a monopoly of violence they will use it to enslave more docile human beings and kill anyone who threatens to get in their way. This is the nature of government and it explains why slavery, in its many forms, always exists.
God himself will eventually have to use force, or the threat of it, in order to forever imprison Satan. In the ongoing struggle of good vs. evil, it will not be by means of gentle persuasion that evil desists, but through the use of force. All foolish pacifists wish to do is convince the credulous that they are better than God.
IT IS AN ITEM OF TACIT AGREEMENT among the natural leaders of the militia movement that eventually it will come down to violence. Some of us might file lawsuits or run for political office or pursue other "non-violent" means of change, even though we know there is no justice to be found in government courts and there is no chance to be elected in a society determined to cannibalize itself until there is nothing left to loot. Why do we engage in activity hopeless in its own right?
It is no longer so much a matter of de-legitimizing government. Most people realize the government is corrupt and unjust since the government was the greatest devourer of its former right to rule.
Right now we are in the middle of the choosing of sides for the Great Violence ahead. An array of the New Elite, with their allies of Constitutionalists, Militant Libertarians, Birchers, home-schoolers, Radicalized Christians, Militias, Common-Law Sovereigns and other tired producers prepare to do battle with the tired, corrupt Old Elite and their rabble of government workers, army-of-occupation police thugs, politicians, lawyers, corporations, bankers, and other assorted parasitic looters. In between both camps are the great mass of Homer Simpsons, uneasily sitting on the fence, waiting for one side to win. The entire country holds its breath for the election of 1996, after which this country will implode when some trifling incident sparks a Second American Civil War.
Our side must present Justice- and Freedom-based alternatives to violence, if for no other reason than to increase the poignancy due to good-faith efforts shattered upon the greed-carapace of evil.
Right now, the very best and brightest militia people are beginning to measure the new foundations of government for after we win this war. Will we have a loose confederation of states banded together for mutual protection? Small republics of like-minded people? An overall Cromwellian military dictatorship for 40 years until the people are worthy to reassume a whole American Republic? Petty monarchies or despotism? Complete anarchy?
We will probably win this upcoming war, although some of us won't be around to celebrate the victory. Good usually triumphs over evil for no other reason than because good can survive on its own, but evil must live off of good. But what happens if all the good is completely destroyed because it did not use the tool of Violence? Granted, evil devours itself upon its lusts. How does this benefit good?
Non-violence is a mirage dreamed up by pacifists -- cowards demanding halos. Far better to use a tool which works.