7 ms·

> Occupy and anti-Trump protestors should study and learn how that works. You see to have effective peaceful protests, there has to be a credible threat of extr

> Occupy and anti-Trump protestors should study and learn how that works. You see to have effective peaceful protests, there has to be a credible threat of extreme and overwhelming violence that will follow unless the government listens. Government should be afraid of the people. Please don't encourage violence. The anti-Trumpers aren't fighting corruption, they're fighting democracy and their fellow citizens. Note that I'm anti-Trump myself - I voted against him and find him to be an embarrassment. But that's no justification for putting on masks and beating up random people. Nor is it an excuse for encouraging others to do the same.

mschuster91 9y ago
> But that's no justification for putting on masks and beating up random people. Nor is it an excuse for encouraging others to do the same. The problem is, until those in powers are not afraid that their bodies will literally be dragged through the streets, they have no incentive to not do anything they need to stay in power. And the more authoritarian the rule of those in power is, the greater the desire of those not in power to pay back what they received - which means that the means those in power use to stay in power grow ever more brutal. Not nice, but that's the way it is. Please also remember the inherent violence in the capitalist system - the richness of the rich is guaranteed by the threat of the police to arrest and the "justice" system to lock you up in case you dare to take something away from the rich. I personally won't throw bricks at banks but I also will not distance myself from those who feel that this is an appropriate course of action.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  When the revolution comes for your head, too, you might have a different view on that, and history has shown that to happen time and time again.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    History also shows that nobody ever believes that will happen, right up until it does.
- wolco 9y ago
  Violence? Drag his body down the street? Attacking innocent people until everyone does what you say? Those groups get labelled terrorist. That is the difference between a first world country and a second or third. Some people may hate trump but they also know in a few years people will have the option of voting for someone else. When you change leaders by dragging them down a street you get the types of leaders who will drag you down the street if need be.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > Some people may hate trump but they also know in a few years people will have the option of voting for someone else. This is the thing where I am not sure of, and this is the problem. You remember "Lock her up"? Who can guarantee that Trump is not going to follow through on this promise? Who can guarantee that Trump will not again cooperate with the Russians in order to get reelected? Or for what its worth who can guarantee that Trump won't pardon himself (or fire Mueller) when the fire of the Mueller investigations grows too hot - and then, who can guarantee that the Republicans will grow the spine to impeach him? The perspective of a possibility of change in three years is growing slimmer and slimmer by the day, with each moderate Republican getting replaced by an alt-righter. And you better hope no other Supreme Court justice dies or retires as long as Trump is in power - because then nothing that challenges gerrymandering will pass the SC.
    - katastic 9y ago
      >You remember "Lock her up"? Who can guarantee that Trump is not going to follow through on this promise? 1) He hasn't in over a year of office. 2) He can't do anything that overrides the judicial and legislative branches. Which is why ALL of his major plans go no where. No Muslim ban. No reproductive rights changes. Nothing. 3) If she commits crimes, why should she be above jail time? Shouldn't everyone who major commits crimes be in jail? Trump, Hillary, what's the difference? A crime is a crime--regardless of whether you like that candidate. And back to #2. That is why your worldview is both insane, and dangerous. Even when you have a "Bad president" the rest of the country keeps ticking along fine because the other branches are designed from the ground up to prevent dictators of all types. So you basically just want to burn the country to the ground because "your candidate" didn't win. And that's a horrific reason to plunge a country into chaos. You're basically arguing to plunge the country into the very chaos you claim we're already in. Dragging bodies through the streets? Burning down buildings, and neighborhoods? Smoke bombs? Throwing bottles of piss at veterans? Does that sound like something that brings freedom and liberty and peace? Does utopia come from evil? And how in the world can you be sure "your vision" of utopia is going to be the one that comes when you pull a revolution? You think when you destabilize the most powerful country in the world, that nobody else in the world is going to try and swoop into that power vacuum? Only if you've been drinking the coolaid. So let me end with a quote from Bill Clinton: They need to be for something specific and not just against something because if you’re just against something, somebody else will fill the vacuum you create.”
- thedevil 9y ago
  The people in power have to fear losing elections. The system was specifically designed so the masses can force change without violence. Supporting terrorism to override that system is awful, regardless of how you feel about capitalism.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > The system was specifically designed so the masses can force change without violence. Point is, you need masses. Masses that are interested in politics, and actually have the time to be interested in politics! If I would have to work two (or more) jobs to get by certainly politics were solid bottom of my priority list. Democracy needs an electorate that is interested in democracy or it will get owned by a minority who is, and then dismantled.
    - logiclion 9y ago
      since you seem to be replying to everyone else can you please reply to my comment as well? I'm curious where the downvotes come from but no one is addressing me...
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >The system was specifically designed so the masses can force change without violence. It was also specifically stated by the system architects that their safeguards would inevitably become null. With that being said, I do not advocate such violent measures. The strategies of Dr. King seem to me to be more effective than violence when dealing with an enemy which has a monopoly on violence.
    - RodericDay 9y ago
      MLK Jr. benefited hugely from Malcolm X being the bad cop to his good cop. Exactly what the second commentator is talking about. All the social gains made by social democracies, the nordics, Canada, FDR, etc. were made under the backdrop of a real threat of bloody communist revolution.
- logiclion 9y ago
  Sure, hate the rich, it doesn't prove you have compassion for the poor. What you are stating as a threat is really the 'protection' of private property. Something that a poor person has access to as well, and in fact the utilization of such could allow them to come out of poverty. As far as your remarks on power, I hope you also understand it isn't a replacement for a hierarchy built on competence. Something that the Capitalist system seems to reward as well...interesting...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > Something that a poor person has access to as well I doubt this. When the other side has orders of magnitude more money than you, you don't have access to protection by the legal system - this is the very reason why and how, for example, patent trolls stay in business. > and in fact the utilization of such could allow them to come out of poverty You're talking about trickle-down effect, I guess? That's been proven false. When all the employers pay only the least they have to, you won't ever get out of poverty. What could help is strikes, but union busting has taken care of that "problem" for the employers. > it isn't a replacement for a hierarchy built on competence Competence does not seem to be rewarded as much as it was in ye olde times. Look at who is in government right now: certainly not the experts that the US needs, and in Europe the situation doesn't look much better... (for the record, given your question above: I have not downvoted you)
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - logiclion 9y ago
      Sorry, when I said access to private property I was referring to the right of having private property in general. A poor person can still have private property, I'm not going to play the game of rich vs poor. Again for the utilization of private property, a person is still able to use their own property without the interference of ANYONE else. I'm not speaking about rich vs poor, I'm speaking as an individual. Essentially what my entire post has been is about the dynamic of power and victimization when it comes to the criticism of Capitalism. I'm sorry but I really can't subscribe to the idea that it's inherently violent because poor people are oppressed and then the police are used as the henchmen of the rich when the poor act out. Which is why I raised the concept of competency to begin with. A poor person has the right and if they have the ability, they can try to leverage their own way of acquiring value. It becomes violent when resources are scarce and the 'poor' are victimized into believing that the rich are the oppressors aka Maoist China & Stalinist Russia. As long as opportunities exist to move up and down the class/social ladder I don't again think its concise to say that more 'power' is needed and I'd again say that understanding that hierarchy can be achieved of competency is important to remove the idea of victimization. Lastly to explain my point simply, you might be for those that throw bricks as a display of 'power', but those bricks can be used not only for the skyscrapers of the 'oppressors', but they can be used for the bricks of small businesses and other uses to enable poor people to make a living and in turn create value for others in a capitalist society. How is this related to President Trump and how he became president/what this means for America? I literally have no idea how American capitalism is to blame? It seems like you just don't like Trump, that's fine me neither. But I'm not going to start raving about anti-capitalistic ideology while I type all of this on a MacBook am I...
drb91 9y ago
The idea that democracy already failed and americans are already serving oligarchs is more common than you might think. It’s certainly difficult to see how anti-trump people are anti-democracy: the mechanism with which trump won is distinctly NOT democratic. To some extent, democracy (and a republic to a far greater extent) only works because of fear of violence. This was discussed heavily in the early days of the republic (well, both the us and rome).
- wolco 9y ago
  But then it didn't fail because the version that was implemented started off with oligarchs we have been slowly moving in the right direction
  - eecc 9y ago
    That’s what they teach in the classrooms you faithfully attended. Gotta love the raptured eyes of the pupils, so alike those wondering about the virtues of Stalinism...
    - logiclion 9y ago
      Ah yes, The Gulag Archipelago
    - 13of40 9y ago
      The ex-Soviets I've talked to about this pretty unanimously relate that they were raised to think the USSR was the best country on earth, just like we are in the US. They also tend to agree that life here is way, way better. In other words, just because we both had to recite a Pledge of Allegiance every morning doesn't mean we both had exile, mass murder, man-made famines, etc., on the same scale.
      - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        Just because some country in the past had it worse doesn't mean our country now doesn't have massive structural issues. A republic requires the trust of its people to function properly, and the fact that this trust is nearly gone in America should be worrying to everyone.
joaomacp 9y ago
Unexpected words from the devil himself!
mtgx 9y ago
But the threat of violence is what seems to work: https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8518681/protests-riots-work https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8518681/protests-riots-work Many Americans like to whine about their gun rights because they need the guns to fight an oppressive government! But it seems the U.S. government has gotten away with quite a lot lately in terms of how corrupt they've become and the fact that so many Americans own guns doesn't seem to have deterred them too much. In fact, every protest seems to be met with increasingly more violence from the government. Something tells me they aren't too scared at all about people's guns. I can only imagine how they will act when they start allowing police departments to launch drones against protesters in the future (taser-armed, pepper spray-armed, whatever).
- vkou 9y ago
  The left is shooting itself in the foot, by having gun control on its agenda. If Occupy or BLM brought as many guns to their protests as more right-wing protesters do, the police would probably think twice before dispersing them with riot police, beatings, and pepper spray. At least, that's a theory. It might turn into a bloodbath.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    The mass incarceration of African-Americans effectively eliminates the Second Amendment rights of a large segment of that population. (Many have observed that mass incarceration, via the drug war, began soon after segregation became illegal: When one tool of mass oppression became illegal, another was developed. There is some evidence that Nixon intended the drug war to suppress blacks and hippies.) And more importantly, law enforcement responds much differently to guns possessed by black people and guns possessed by whites. An African-American only has to put their hand in their pocket or reach for something, and they are shot. White Americans are encouraged by some in law enforcement to own guns and to use them to prevent crime. People talk about gun owners stopping criminals; you would have to be insane to be black and draw a firearm anywhere around police officers or white gun owners, and especially at the scene of a crime.
  - mirimir 9y ago
rdtsc 9y ago
I don't want violence, and getting things done by voting is obviously much better, but for protests to work I think there has to be a threat of impending violence. A bit like how the nuclear deterrence works but on a smaller scale. I think the idea that the government should be afraid of its people is not a strange idea in his country. Now let's think when is the last time that happened? I am thinking during the Vietnam War protests or Civil Right Movement. I have heard that one reason MLK's protests worked is because there was a credible threat from Malcom X and Nation of Islam, which encouraged gun ownership and self defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballot_or_the_Bullet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballot_or_the_Bullet Yielding and accepting MLK's ideas was only possible as a compromise to preventing a more violent outcome from other groups.
- Moseman23 9y ago
  I am sorry, but you are misunderstanding or deliberately distorting history. I admired a number of things about Malcom X and his movement, but he was always a marginal figure across the whole society. MLK "won" because he and his allies got the federal government, the establishment media and many liberal Republicans (the convention then) in Congress on his side. Bannon and his ilk want nothing more than for violent left wing people to act like it's 1968 in Paris. They will be branded as terrorists and the real destruction of our democratic institutions will follow. We need to attack this clown cult by voting and the courts when, as he is trying to do now, Trump goes after the census, voting rights, and the rule of law.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    > I am sorry, but you are misunderstanding Quite possibly, I only remember stuff I read a while back and don't know the details. > he was always a marginal figure across the whole society I don't disagree that he wasn't marginal, he was. But he wasn't unknown. He advocated violence for self defense. Read "The Ballot or the Bullet" speech http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/malcolm_x_ballot.html http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/malcolm_x_bal... He doesn't say that people should go and commit indiscriminate violence but there is warning that violence might happen if violence against blacks continues. He mentions someone throwing a Molotov cocktail and how unheard of it was for black people to do that. The implication is, this stuff will start spreading fast and quick if the current course continues. There is also an interesting parallel made how the US Army was defeated by guerrilla fighters in Asia, that was a very pertinent remark and appeals to what was on many people's minds at that time. I think those who were in power certainly knew and were aware of Black Nationalism, Black Panthers, them buying and training to use firearms. > MLK "won" because he and his allies got the federal government, the establishment media and many liberal Republicans (the convention then) in Congress on his side. I posit that it happened because there was threat of something like Malcom X was saying happening. I am probably wrong as am only am amateur, you seem to know a bit more about it. So I'd like to hear more on this if you have time or patience.

mschuster91 9y ago

> But that's no justification for putting on masks and beating up random people. Nor is it an excuse for encouraging others to do the same. The problem is, until those in powers are not afraid that their bodies will literally be dragged through the streets, they have no incentive to not do anything they need to stay in power. And the more authoritarian the rule of those in power is, the greater the desire of those not in power to pay back what they received - which means that the means those in power use to stay in power grow ever more brutal. Not nice, but that's the way it is. Please also remember the inherent violence in the capitalist system - the richness of the rich is guaranteed by the threat of the police to arrest and the "justice" system to lock you up in case you dare to take something away from the rich. I personally won't throw bricks at banks but I also will not distance myself from those who feel that this is an appropriate course of action.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
When the revolution comes for your head, too, you might have a different view on that, and history has shown that to happen time and time again.
- throwanem 9y ago
  History also shows that nobody ever believes that will happen, right up until it does.
wolco 9y ago
Violence? Drag his body down the street? Attacking innocent people until everyone does what you say? Those groups get labelled terrorist. That is the difference between a first world country and a second or third. Some people may hate trump but they also know in a few years people will have the option of voting for someone else. When you change leaders by dragging them down a street you get the types of leaders who will drag you down the street if need be.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > Some people may hate trump but they also know in a few years people will have the option of voting for someone else. This is the thing where I am not sure of, and this is the problem. You remember "Lock her up"? Who can guarantee that Trump is not going to follow through on this promise? Who can guarantee that Trump will not again cooperate with the Russians in order to get reelected? Or for what its worth who can guarantee that Trump won't pardon himself (or fire Mueller) when the fire of the Mueller investigations grows too hot - and then, who can guarantee that the Republicans will grow the spine to impeach him? The perspective of a possibility of change in three years is growing slimmer and slimmer by the day, with each moderate Republican getting replaced by an alt-righter. And you better hope no other Supreme Court justice dies or retires as long as Trump is in power - because then nothing that challenges gerrymandering will pass the SC.
  - katastic 9y ago
    >You remember "Lock her up"? Who can guarantee that Trump is not going to follow through on this promise? 1) He hasn't in over a year of office. 2) He can't do anything that overrides the judicial and legislative branches. Which is why ALL of his major plans go no where. No Muslim ban. No reproductive rights changes. Nothing. 3) If she commits crimes, why should she be above jail time? Shouldn't everyone who major commits crimes be in jail? Trump, Hillary, what's the difference? A crime is a crime--regardless of whether you like that candidate. And back to #2. That is why your worldview is both insane, and dangerous. Even when you have a "Bad president" the rest of the country keeps ticking along fine because the other branches are designed from the ground up to prevent dictators of all types. So you basically just want to burn the country to the ground because "your candidate" didn't win. And that's a horrific reason to plunge a country into chaos. You're basically arguing to plunge the country into the very chaos you claim we're already in. Dragging bodies through the streets? Burning down buildings, and neighborhoods? Smoke bombs? Throwing bottles of piss at veterans? Does that sound like something that brings freedom and liberty and peace? Does utopia come from evil? And how in the world can you be sure "your vision" of utopia is going to be the one that comes when you pull a revolution? You think when you destabilize the most powerful country in the world, that nobody else in the world is going to try and swoop into that power vacuum? Only if you've been drinking the coolaid. So let me end with a quote from Bill Clinton: They need to be for something specific and not just against something because if you’re just against something, somebody else will fill the vacuum you create.”
thedevil 9y ago
The people in power have to fear losing elections. The system was specifically designed so the masses can force change without violence. Supporting terrorism to override that system is awful, regardless of how you feel about capitalism.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > The system was specifically designed so the masses can force change without violence. Point is, you need masses. Masses that are interested in politics, and actually have the time to be interested in politics! If I would have to work two (or more) jobs to get by certainly politics were solid bottom of my priority list. Democracy needs an electorate that is interested in democracy or it will get owned by a minority who is, and then dismantled.
  - logiclion 9y ago
    since you seem to be replying to everyone else can you please reply to my comment as well? I'm curious where the downvotes come from but no one is addressing me...
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >The system was specifically designed so the masses can force change without violence. It was also specifically stated by the system architects that their safeguards would inevitably become null. With that being said, I do not advocate such violent measures. The strategies of Dr. King seem to me to be more effective than violence when dealing with an enemy which has a monopoly on violence.
  - RodericDay 9y ago
    MLK Jr. benefited hugely from Malcolm X being the bad cop to his good cop. Exactly what the second commentator is talking about. All the social gains made by social democracies, the nordics, Canada, FDR, etc. were made under the backdrop of a real threat of bloody communist revolution.
logiclion 9y ago
Sure, hate the rich, it doesn't prove you have compassion for the poor. What you are stating as a threat is really the 'protection' of private property. Something that a poor person has access to as well, and in fact the utilization of such could allow them to come out of poverty. As far as your remarks on power, I hope you also understand it isn't a replacement for a hierarchy built on competence. Something that the Capitalist system seems to reward as well...interesting...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > Something that a poor person has access to as well I doubt this. When the other side has orders of magnitude more money than you, you don't have access to protection by the legal system - this is the very reason why and how, for example, patent trolls stay in business. > and in fact the utilization of such could allow them to come out of poverty You're talking about trickle-down effect, I guess? That's been proven false. When all the employers pay only the least they have to, you won't ever get out of poverty. What could help is strikes, but union busting has taken care of that "problem" for the employers. > it isn't a replacement for a hierarchy built on competence Competence does not seem to be rewarded as much as it was in ye olde times. Look at who is in government right now: certainly not the experts that the US needs, and in Europe the situation doesn't look much better... (for the record, given your question above: I have not downvoted you)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - logiclion 9y ago
    Sorry, when I said access to private property I was referring to the right of having private property in general. A poor person can still have private property, I'm not going to play the game of rich vs poor. Again for the utilization of private property, a person is still able to use their own property without the interference of ANYONE else. I'm not speaking about rich vs poor, I'm speaking as an individual. Essentially what my entire post has been is about the dynamic of power and victimization when it comes to the criticism of Capitalism. I'm sorry but I really can't subscribe to the idea that it's inherently violent because poor people are oppressed and then the police are used as the henchmen of the rich when the poor act out. Which is why I raised the concept of competency to begin with. A poor person has the right and if they have the ability, they can try to leverage their own way of acquiring value. It becomes violent when resources are scarce and the 'poor' are victimized into believing that the rich are the oppressors aka Maoist China & Stalinist Russia. As long as opportunities exist to move up and down the class/social ladder I don't again think its concise to say that more 'power' is needed and I'd again say that understanding that hierarchy can be achieved of competency is important to remove the idea of victimization. Lastly to explain my point simply, you might be for those that throw bricks as a display of 'power', but those bricks can be used not only for the skyscrapers of the 'oppressors', but they can be used for the bricks of small businesses and other uses to enable poor people to make a living and in turn create value for others in a capitalist society. How is this related to President Trump and how he became president/what this means for America? I literally have no idea how American capitalism is to blame? It seems like you just don't like Trump, that's fine me neither. But I'm not going to start raving about anti-capitalistic ideology while I type all of this on a MacBook am I...

drb91 9y ago

The idea that democracy already failed and americans are already serving oligarchs is more common than you might think. It’s certainly difficult to see how anti-trump people are anti-democracy: the mechanism with which trump won is distinctly NOT democratic. To some extent, democracy (and a republic to a far greater extent) only works because of fear of violence. This was discussed heavily in the early days of the republic (well, both the us and rome).

wolco 9y ago
But then it didn't fail because the version that was implemented started off with oligarchs we have been slowly moving in the right direction
- eecc 9y ago
  That’s what they teach in the classrooms you faithfully attended. Gotta love the raptured eyes of the pupils, so alike those wondering about the virtues of Stalinism...
  - logiclion 9y ago
    Ah yes, The Gulag Archipelago
  - 13of40 9y ago
    The ex-Soviets I've talked to about this pretty unanimously relate that they were raised to think the USSR was the best country on earth, just like we are in the US. They also tend to agree that life here is way, way better. In other words, just because we both had to recite a Pledge of Allegiance every morning doesn't mean we both had exile, mass murder, man-made famines, etc., on the same scale.
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      Just because some country in the past had it worse doesn't mean our country now doesn't have massive structural issues. A republic requires the trust of its people to function properly, and the fact that this trust is nearly gone in America should be worrying to everyone.

joaomacp 9y ago

Unexpected words from the devil himself!

mtgx 9y ago

But the threat of violence is what seems to work: https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8518681/protests-riots-work https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8518681/protests-riots-work Many Americans like to whine about their gun rights because they need the guns to fight an oppressive government! But it seems the U.S. government has gotten away with quite a lot lately in terms of how corrupt they've become and the fact that so many Americans own guns doesn't seem to have deterred them too much. In fact, every protest seems to be met with increasingly more violence from the government. Something tells me they aren't too scared at all about people's guns. I can only imagine how they will act when they start allowing police departments to launch drones against protesters in the future (taser-armed, pepper spray-armed, whatever).

vkou 9y ago
The left is shooting itself in the foot, by having gun control on its agenda. If Occupy or BLM brought as many guns to their protests as more right-wing protesters do, the police would probably think twice before dispersing them with riot police, beatings, and pepper spray. At least, that's a theory. It might turn into a bloodbath.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  The mass incarceration of African-Americans effectively eliminates the Second Amendment rights of a large segment of that population. (Many have observed that mass incarceration, via the drug war, began soon after segregation became illegal: When one tool of mass oppression became illegal, another was developed. There is some evidence that Nixon intended the drug war to suppress blacks and hippies.) And more importantly, law enforcement responds much differently to guns possessed by black people and guns possessed by whites. An African-American only has to put their hand in their pocket or reach for something, and they are shot. White Americans are encouraged by some in law enforcement to own guns and to use them to prevent crime. People talk about gun owners stopping criminals; you would have to be insane to be black and draw a firearm anywhere around police officers or white gun owners, and especially at the scene of a crime.
- mirimir 9y ago

rdtsc 9y ago

I don't want violence, and getting things done by voting is obviously much better, but for protests to work I think there has to be a threat of impending violence. A bit like how the nuclear deterrence works but on a smaller scale. I think the idea that the government should be afraid of its people is not a strange idea in his country. Now let's think when is the last time that happened? I am thinking during the Vietnam War protests or Civil Right Movement. I have heard that one reason MLK's protests worked is because there was a credible threat from Malcom X and Nation of Islam, which encouraged gun ownership and self defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballot_or_the_Bullet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballot_or_the_Bullet Yielding and accepting MLK's ideas was only possible as a compromise to preventing a more violent outcome from other groups.

Moseman23 9y ago
I am sorry, but you are misunderstanding or deliberately distorting history. I admired a number of things about Malcom X and his movement, but he was always a marginal figure across the whole society. MLK "won" because he and his allies got the federal government, the establishment media and many liberal Republicans (the convention then) in Congress on his side. Bannon and his ilk want nothing more than for violent left wing people to act like it's 1968 in Paris. They will be branded as terrorists and the real destruction of our democratic institutions will follow. We need to attack this clown cult by voting and the courts when, as he is trying to do now, Trump goes after the census, voting rights, and the rule of law.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > I am sorry, but you are misunderstanding Quite possibly, I only remember stuff I read a while back and don't know the details. > he was always a marginal figure across the whole society I don't disagree that he wasn't marginal, he was. But he wasn't unknown. He advocated violence for self defense. Read "The Ballot or the Bullet" speech http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/malcolm_x_ballot.html http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/malcolm_x_bal... He doesn't say that people should go and commit indiscriminate violence but there is warning that violence might happen if violence against blacks continues. He mentions someone throwing a Molotov cocktail and how unheard of it was for black people to do that. The implication is, this stuff will start spreading fast and quick if the current course continues. There is also an interesting parallel made how the US Army was defeated by guerrilla fighters in Asia, that was a very pertinent remark and appeals to what was on many people's minds at that time. I think those who were in power certainly knew and were aware of Black Nationalism, Black Panthers, them buying and training to use firearms. > MLK "won" because he and his allies got the federal government, the establishment media and many liberal Republicans (the convention then) in Congress on his side. I posit that it happened because there was threat of something like Malcom X was saying happening. I am probably wrong as am only am amateur, you seem to know a bit more about it. So I'd like to hear more on this if you have time or patience.