How many times does peaceful means need to emphatically fail through unjust and evil measures before you're willing to accept that violence is, sadly, the answer?
I don't say that with glee. I don't say that happy at the idea of violence. It's awful that it will eventually come to this, but it inevitably will become the choice of "let injustice flourish, or fight back".
Better yet, instead of wringing your hands over it, what is the solution here? Voooooote harder? Vooooooote for some other establishment stooge of a different party colour? How many times have you voooooted and actually voted FOR someone you actually and wholly support? Or has it always been against the other, supposedly worse side from winning? Has that ever actually worked out in your favour and made actual progress? Or has it actually just maintained the status quo of perpetual state growth at the expense of the public?
I hate that it will come to violence. But it will come to violence at one point. It just disgusts me more what will happen if that doesn't occur.
terrorism does not help the cause. normies hate it.
if you actually want to change something through violence, you have to get organized and focus on the sources of the issue. the migrant hotels are not the source of the issue, they are a symptom, and these riots don't seem to have organization.
Without organization, they are ultimately doomed to fail. this is how public support for black lives matter declines so sharply, and it is how public support for the anti-immigration movement will decline. without public support you just have more resistance, or worse support for the opposing side.
generating enemy soldiers is not a winning strategy.
this is how public support for black lives matter declines so sharply
Are you sure it was the violence, and not where the violence was targeted?
Hell, are you sure violence was even a metric? Because it seems like the life cycle of BLM has ALWAYS been correlated quite nicely with elections. Almost like their growth and decline might have something to do with that.
You're determined to bury your head in the sand and do nothing all because you don't get to control the PR. Here's a newflash for you: You will never have the mainstream media on your side. Ever. It will never, ever happen. And so, if you cannot control the media perception of you, why are you still so determined to play by that rulebook? Is it fear? I wouldn't blame you. I'm scared myself. I admit it. I don't want to lose my life, either literally or in the figurative sense of what I have going for me. But I'm not going to wring my hands because of violence when violence is being used against the innocent public every single day.
You want to ignore the problem? Fine. Don't have a hissy fit because others are done ignoring it.
it is election season right now, and BLM is virtually silent. I'm 100% sure this is because The Summer of Love left a bad taste in the public's mouth.
I'm not determined to bury my head in the sand, I'm determined to find solutions that don't make things worse. metaphorically speaking, the UK has a fire in the kitchen (the fire being mass-immigration related crime, with the authorities turning the blind eye). I'm seeing all these people saying we have to do something, which I agree, but then they bring in a tank of gasoline and say they are going to throw it on the fire. I'm desperately telling people to not throw gasoline on the fire, because that will only make things worse. yet these retarded people would rather throw a gasoline on the fire because it's "something".
Well of course voting is a proxy for violence, though few are willing to accept that conclusion when taken to the logical extreme. Every law, every single one, is a threat of violence. Voting is, ultimately, what decides laws. Ergo, voting is violence.
I agree, that makes these riots marginally better than the summer of love. but the anger is still directed at the symptom and not the cause. as a result, public support will decline, the crackdown will be severe, and the end result will be worse than when they left off.
how many times must I say that pointing at the advantages of something does not equal support for it. my stance on race mixing is 100% neutral, can you smooth brains even comprehend the concept of neutrality?
I might agree if it were random arson that had a high chance of collateral damage. But it isn't. This is not the BLM style of burning down random stores in their neighborhood because they're throwing a tantrum. This is the targeted destruction of infrastructure created as a foothold in an operation to destroy their nation. It is not terrorism, it's a strike against enemy supply lines.
They would be justified in airstrikes at this point, but have to settle for the tools available.
I don't care that their cause is just, this tactic is never justified.
How many times does peaceful means need to emphatically fail through unjust and evil measures before you're willing to accept that violence is, sadly, the answer?
I don't say that with glee. I don't say that happy at the idea of violence. It's awful that it will eventually come to this, but it inevitably will become the choice of "let injustice flourish, or fight back".
Better yet, instead of wringing your hands over it, what is the solution here? Voooooote harder? Vooooooote for some other establishment stooge of a different party colour? How many times have you voooooted and actually voted FOR someone you actually and wholly support? Or has it always been against the other, supposedly worse side from winning? Has that ever actually worked out in your favour and made actual progress? Or has it actually just maintained the status quo of perpetual state growth at the expense of the public?
I hate that it will come to violence. But it will come to violence at one point. It just disgusts me more what will happen if that doesn't occur.
terrorism does not help the cause. normies hate it.
if you actually want to change something through violence, you have to get organized and focus on the sources of the issue. the migrant hotels are not the source of the issue, they are a symptom, and these riots don't seem to have organization.
Without organization, they are ultimately doomed to fail. this is how public support for black lives matter declines so sharply, and it is how public support for the anti-immigration movement will decline. without public support you just have more resistance, or worse support for the opposing side.
generating enemy soldiers is not a winning strategy.
it's all about hearts and minds. if you don't get the people behind your cause, they will reject you like white blood cells rejecting a virus.
Are you sure it was the violence, and not where the violence was targeted?
Hell, are you sure violence was even a metric? Because it seems like the life cycle of BLM has ALWAYS been correlated quite nicely with elections. Almost like their growth and decline might have something to do with that.
You're determined to bury your head in the sand and do nothing all because you don't get to control the PR. Here's a newflash for you: You will never have the mainstream media on your side. Ever. It will never, ever happen. And so, if you cannot control the media perception of you, why are you still so determined to play by that rulebook? Is it fear? I wouldn't blame you. I'm scared myself. I admit it. I don't want to lose my life, either literally or in the figurative sense of what I have going for me. But I'm not going to wring my hands because of violence when violence is being used against the innocent public every single day.
You want to ignore the problem? Fine. Don't have a hissy fit because others are done ignoring it.
it is election season right now, and BLM is virtually silent. I'm 100% sure this is because The Summer of Love left a bad taste in the public's mouth.
I'm not determined to bury my head in the sand, I'm determined to find solutions that don't make things worse. metaphorically speaking, the UK has a fire in the kitchen (the fire being mass-immigration related crime, with the authorities turning the blind eye). I'm seeing all these people saying we have to do something, which I agree, but then they bring in a tank of gasoline and say they are going to throw it on the fire. I'm desperately telling people to not throw gasoline on the fire, because that will only make things worse. yet these retarded people would rather throw a gasoline on the fire because it's "something".
Well of course voting is a proxy for violence, though few are willing to accept that conclusion when taken to the logical extreme. Every law, every single one, is a threat of violence. Voting is, ultimately, what decides laws. Ergo, voting is violence.
It's being used against proper targets and not random shop owners like the George Groid chimp outs of 2020, so it's all good.
I agree, that makes these riots marginally better than the summer of love. but the anger is still directed at the symptom and not the cause. as a result, public support will decline, the crackdown will be severe, and the end result will be worse than when they left off.
You also think that race mixing is good. So maybe you should shut up.
how many times must I say that pointing at the advantages of something does not equal support for it. my stance on race mixing is 100% neutral, can you smooth brains even comprehend the concept of neutrality?
EDIT: apparently not
I might agree if it were random arson that had a high chance of collateral damage. But it isn't. This is not the BLM style of burning down random stores in their neighborhood because they're throwing a tantrum. This is the targeted destruction of infrastructure created as a foothold in an operation to destroy their nation. It is not terrorism, it's a strike against enemy supply lines.
They would be justified in airstrikes at this point, but have to settle for the tools available.