This CNN Joker does not want us using the word "violent" to describe the violent actions of antifa in Atlanta 🤡
(twitter.com)
🧠These people are stupid!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (9)
sorted by:
Here is what the "anarchists" say about property destruction:
"Violence against Property vs. Violence against People
Again, some people reject that violence is the correct word to describe property destruction. Because physical objects cannot feel pain, they argue, tools like spray paint and accelerants can’t be considered weapons and their use is not violent. I think the distinction between sensate beings and insensate objects is crucial. So is property destruction violent or nonviolent? This question is both pragmatic—we do need to call it something—and experiential. Destroying property can be done without harming a single sentient being and with great effect to stop an unjust system. Can anyone really argue against the French resistance blowing up railroad tracks and bridges to stop the Nazis?
But violence against property can also be an act meant to intimidate. This is the source of the unease that many progressives and radicals may feel toward property destruction. If you have been a person so threatened, you know how effective it is. Indeed, if violence against property were an ineffective approach to instilling fear and compliance, no one would ever use it. Burning a cross on someone’s lawn is meant to traumatize and terrorize. So is smashing all the dinner plates to the floor. A friend who survived a right-wing terrorist attack on the building where she worked was later hospitalized with severe PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder). Property destruction can have a crippling effect on sentient beings.
Whatever we decide to call property destruction, we need to weigh the consequences and strategic benefits and make our decisions from there. Again, “violence” is not a bad word, only a descriptive one. Obviously, many more people can accept an attack against a window, a wall, or an empty building than can accept violence against a person, and that’s as it should be. But wherever you stand personally on this issue, basic respect for each other and for our movement as a whole demands that we acknowledge the distinction between people and property when we discuss violence."
https://deepgreenresistance.net/en/resistance/liberals-radicals/categories-of-violence/
The real goal of BLM was financial terror. They didnt simply burn down random buildings. Catherine Austin Fitts did a deep dive and showed how they burnt down targeting oppurtunity zones - places where business have a huge incentive and can make great profits. The banks swooped in and took over all those properties for pennies on the dollar.
They did not just "destroy property", but they destroyed people's livelihood and stole their assets, very meticulously and deliberately.
That said, a word of caution to become immune to some of Globalist information warfare weapons. They always split the hairs and redefine words to make them weaponized against us, while harmless to them.
"Silence is violence" -> Weaponizing silence against us.
"Property destruction is not violence" -> Making it harmless to them.
We should never all for this trap. When you burn down buildings, it causes terror in the people living there, period. It is violence, no matter how you try to redefine words.
Never let anyone redefine words. Always use common sense to judge actions and outcomes.
BULL SHIT.