There's a lot to what you say, but your "Only violence does anything" position seems quite vague and shifting, unarguable-against (unfalsifiable), and fortunate

There's a lot to what you say, but your "Only violence does anything" position seems quite vague and shifting, unarguable-against (unfalsifiable), and fortunately not borne out by the facts. I get a feeling of blood-lust masquerading as wisdom, but I think the world's not quite as bad or hopeless as you say. A "fierce underlying movement"...you mean, without violent people in the same movement? No-one's saying "Gandhi was the full movement", whatever that would mean exactly. And sure, peaceful protests, civil disobedience and hunger strikes wouldn't have worked against the Nazis, but it worked against the British. (Although it doesn't sound like you would think that's right) You seem to be sweeping all situations into one basket. And in that basket, only violence works, peace never achieves anything. I don't think that's reality. And I can prove it, I think: Watch the documentary on Gene Sharp, "How To Start A Revolution". I hadn't heard of him, which is pretty damning comment on the modern media (considering some of the people who are mega-famous). It seems he and his methods and writings were (in part) responsible for most of these peaceful revolutions sweeping the world in the last few decades, dozens of them. I'd be surprised if you can watch that (and read the associated literature) and not change your view. I found it super-inspiring. And without it, I might have been more convinced by your arguments. Although I think you in no way recognize Gandhi's actual importance in existing-order-subversion.