Why do people do "peaceful protests" and demonstrations?
It's a cargo cult. If you're not willing to kill anyone or burn down buildings then don't waste your fucking time. No one ever accomplished anything by whining peacefully in the street.
>No one ever accomplished anything by whining peacefully in the street.
>No one ever accomplished anything by whining peacefully in the street.
>>66779480
>>66779375
/thread
>No one ever accomplished anything by whining peacefully in the street.
You're a fuckin idiot.
>>66779375
Wasn't peaceful. MLK was a piece of shit that gave a friendly face to a violent movement. The Black Panthers marched along with MLK constantly and he just downplayed it. Even so, the whole civil rights movement really had its success in the subversion of academia by mostly jews. If it had been nothing but blacks and there was no freshly brainwashed young whites to work against their own interests by supporting blacks then nothing would have happened, even with the violent Black Panthers causing trouble.
>>66779480
The Brits didn't give a fuck. If they actually cared about India at that point then they could have easily crushed Gandhi. The whole Indian independence bullshit was just capitalizing on Britain's weakness and their crumbling empire after the war.
Look at Tiananmen Square for an example of how completely useless peaceful protests are when the government actually gives a shit about shutting you down.
>>66781199
>>66779191
you can see the shift in public opinion and in voting trends.
the civil rights movement brought it up as a primary election topic, and democratically advanced their agenda.
you've seen in the last 10 years the advancement of the LGBT agenda, very much promulgated by marching in the streets.
sure, governments can simply crush it when it's an unpopular enough platform, or when their power is secured beyond having to give a shit about their peons.
but it's pretty obviously an effective method of spreading a message or increasing a message's position in a priority list.
also, putting up with protestors costs money, so it becomes a cost/benefit analysis of whether the headache and cash it costs to put up with whiny kids is greater than the disdain and financial costs of giving in to their demands.
>>66781955
>the civil rights movement brought it up as a primary election topic, and democratically advanced their agenda.
I'd argue that this was mostly just due to the subversion of academia. If blacks had attempted to do this on their own then it would have been shut down because the white public was never receptive to these ideas until it had been instilled in them largely through academia. That's why there was such a huge divide between the pro-civil rights whites who were either jews or young college students from the north and then all of the southerners who were extremely hostile to it.
Kevin MacDonald's article on this sums it up better than I can.
>http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/02/jews-blacks-race/
I'll let his article argue for me since it's harder to argue for something that I didn't live through it and we're taught a very simplistic and whitewashed image of the civil rights movement, but I can definitely argue for the LGBT shit since I lived through it.
>you've seen in the last 10 years the advancement of the LGBT agenda, very much promulgated by marching in the streets.
Having lived through this, I'd say that the marching in the streets had little to no positive effect for the advancement of their agenda. It was almost entirely the media and academia on this one. LGBT degeneracy was normalized primarily through the media and TV shows that normalized this degenerate behavior gave it far more widespread public acceptance than anything those "marches of the sub-humans" known as gay pride parades ever accomplished.
It's a way of controlling opposition and social unrest. Give someone an illusion of impact on the reality they inhibit and they'll be too busy to notice that every change of policy or regime is a carefully executed plan or contingency plan.
itt: a neet straining to be free of the basement - the novela
>>66779191
Truly, the niggest person on /pol/ right now.
>>66783317
>just due to the subversion of academia.
it happened way too quickly to be chalked up to professors radicalizing the youth.
we're talking about only 15 years, here. the bus boycott started in 55 and MLK was killed in 68, between then you had crazy elections where it was a primary subject. not because some professors were talking about it, but because massive protests and organizations were keeping it in the newspaper headlines.
gays got into media in the last 10 years by making rather large and vocal protests in the 10 years before that.
a few key celebrity's personal protesting actually had a pretty large effect, like ellen.
and that was with the movement being hamstringed by the pride parades, which are basically the opposite of protesting for normalcy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj2y_8n17SM
Also, posted by a faggot but a decent show how non-violent subversion can disarm heavier oponents and undermine them. The entire reason your nation is now such cucks is because your leftists didnt chimp out when they pushed their degeneracy.
another example is how the non-violent anti-war protests during vietnam and iraq/afghanistan, while not actively ending the wars, certainly had impacts on it by driving public opinion, then elections. the war machine wanting a war, and the public not wanting a war, resulted in limited ineffective war, as neither no-war and real-war were politically untenable.
Why does the alt right movement love the word subversion so much, /pol/?
>>66784346
>it happened way too quickly to be chalked up to professors radicalizing the youth.
>we're talking about only 15 years, here
It takes less than 4 years to radicalize the youth though. Just look at colleges today, especially anyone who isn't majoring in a STEM field. They go in relatively sane and they come out ranting and raving about how there's more than two genders and all sorts of crazy shit. That's what's so dangerous about academia. If you're not vigilant in stopping ""rootless, malicious outsiders"" from getting into it then they can brainwash an entire generation within just a few years by hijacking academia.
I would just argue that marches and non-violent protests are only successful when the public or at least the youth have already been conditioned (via academia and the media) to be receptive to these ideas. It's basically theater. They already sold you the idea at the schools and through the TV shows and now they have to go through the motions of making it seem as if there's some kind of important struggle in the streets when it's really just elaborate theater designed to intensify the emotions of everyone involved.
The marches aren't changing anyone's mind, that happened a long time ago and if the brainwashing didn't take then the marches will only make the opposition even more opposed to it. We can see a perfect example of this today with the BLM protests. You either completely hate them and think that the whole thing is ridiculous or you were already totally sold on the idea and these people like Trayvon and Michael Brown are saints in your eyes. That sale happened a long time ago and the people who support BLM supported these ideas long before BLM was a thing. The protests and riots just serve as a way to intensify the emotions on both sides and that gives it some sense of manufactured urgency and false legitimacy when all of the sudden the supreme court is getting involved so that they can ram it up your ass.
>>66785433
The last patch of people were radicalized by 4 years, but minimum 15 years beforehand were spent on creating the teachers, recruiters and the vanguard for the liberal movements. From the hyper feminists to the race baiters, they all did not just appear out of the blue and decided to fuck up a generation.
But non-violence works when your opponent believes itself to have honor and considers itself "above" pettiness. The reason the Brits got screwed by Ghandi was because brits believed themselves to be "civilized", so did not respond with violence when nobody was directly attacking them, and were hesitant to fight back due to their own media and ideals preventing from killing people just for speaking out.
This same reason is why the protests in china, and at times in russia dont have any results: The people know damn well they themselves are bastards and they make no illusions about what the non-violent are trying to archive. There is no "higher morality" to abuse from such opponents, they do not let themselves be threatened by something that might seem bening at the moment, but can snowball into something bigger.
Hell, only reason Balts got out from under soviet rule was because directly at the moment of the non-violent protest, soviets were trying to paint themselves under the image of a "peoples union", and stomping us out like they did in most other places would have gone against their own sprouted ideals. Americans helped of course, but it was soviet inaction due to their own ideals that made the difference.
So following this: If your enemy has a set of core rules they abide by, non-violent protests can be effective. If the enemy makes no illusions, non-violence is just a waste of life.
