Тег: LGBT

Suppressing supporters of violence using the methods that successfully crushed homophobes in the West

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of people are actually capable of committing brutal violence, politically, supporters of non-violence ideas are currently in the minority. The majority, at least passively, consider the use of force justified in the implementation of state coercion, and some people even actively resort to using this tool of force in the pursuit of their goals. And how can the ideas of non-violence be promoted in such a position?

To do this, let us consider how some other ideas that were very unpopular in society were promoted, for example, the ideas of the LGBT movement (it does not matter how you personally feel about this; moreover, if you believe that movements of this kind must be stopped by resorting to violent measures, then you are simply a violent person—realize this fact and reconsider your outlook on life). Of course, there are relatively few representatives of this movement in society, which means they simply would not have had the chance to defeat all their enemies at once. But that is not necessary; it is not essential to deal with everyone at once, it is enough to choose one goal. Suppose a specific business began to implement a policy of discrimination against LGBT representatives, or some person spoke about them in an extremely negative key. By gathering together, the representatives of the movement have enough strength to organize a campaign of harassment against a single subject. Of course, this subject, faced with strong condemnation, will begin to lose their reputation; if it is a business, its income will be jeopardized. Seeing this, other opponents of the ideas of this movement will not want to risk their money and reputation, and therefore will make certain concessions. This is how the LGBT movement managed to promote its cultural agenda and achieve recognition in many countries—in fact, in most developed countries, where half a century ago homosexuals were afraid to even walk down the street holding hands.

A similar strategy could be used in the promotion of the ideas of non-violence. All supporters of violence cannot be defeated at once, especially considering that a significant part of society, albeit passively, is still on their side (moreover, they themselves are biologically incapable of initiating violence, as most of the population have a strong version of the violence-inhibiting mechanism, but this does not prevent them from having certain views and morally supporting other people who are more prone to violence). But, again, there is no need to fight everyone all at once. It is enough to choose one subject who advocates for violence and organize a campaign of harassment against them, as a result of which they will suffer certain losses. Other subjects, seeing this, will make concessions to us.

One of the concrete implementations of this strategy could be the conclusion of non-violence contracts. For example, deciding to do business with a certain organization or person, one can demand the inclusion of a clause in the contract stating that in the event of disputed situations, the parties cannot resort to violent measures of influence, i.e., cannot turn to state judicial and law enforcement structures. Instead, the resolution of the conflict must be carried out exclusively within the framework of non-violent reputational and financial influence. If the other party agrees to such a condition, it will create a positive precedent that will greatly help in the further popularization of non-violence ideas. If they refuse, then they can be condemned as a supporter of violence according to the model described above.

Thus, even with a small number of active supporters of non-violence ideas, it is possible to effectively deal with a certain number of supporters of violence. And those remaining will simply decide to make concessions in order not to lose their business or avoid ending up in social isolation. Over time, the agenda of non-violence will become recognized and generally accepted, which is what we strive for!

Conservator, you reap what you sow!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Very foolish is the conservative who implements their dreams of ethnic purity and a traditional order of life through state violence in a mandatory manner toward the entire society. But a progressivist who uses this same method to promote a multicultural and LGBT agenda will be equally foolish. This is because, regardless of which ideas are promoted by this method, one must constantly use and maintain the instruments of violence in a state of “combat readiness.”

But power is never eternal. There is no method to leave power in the hands of one interest group forever, simply because different groups always exist within society. And when one of these groups gains enough strength and popularity to remove the previous group from power, the previous interests are removed along with them.

To make this clearer, let’s ask a question as an example, considering the current state of affairs in the Western world. European and American conservatives are extremely dissatisfied that their children are forced to study multiculturalism in schools and are taught tolerance toward LGBT. Sometimes it even goes as far as conservative parents having their children taken away by social services if they decide to shield them from such education. They are also dissatisfied that their funds are taken through taxation to provide aid and additional privileges to minorities and immigrants.

But who is to blame for this? The progressivists? Perhaps, as they are using the tools of force. But the conservatives themselves are also to blame. This is because they supported and nurtured the instrument of violence. And why be surprised that this instrument simply passed into the hands of other interest groups over time? What should conservatives be surprised about after they had previously killed, imprisoned, or forcibly treated those very same LGBT representatives, and then their children began to be mandatorily taught tolerance toward values of this kind? If conservatives had gotten rid of the instrument of violence, not used it to pursue their goals, then no one would have been able to to impose their orders upon them. Yes, the proponents of multiculturalism and LGBT representatives, whom they hate so strongly, would still exist. But they would not be able to force them how to live.

The moral of this story can be expressed by a single parable: you reap what you sow! If you sow violence, you yourself will become its victim; it is inevitable. Never count on the instrument of violence being yours and only yours. It is better not to facilitate the development of such an instrument—then no one will be able to use it against you.