I dislike non-violence

[DisillusionedCitizen]

It's easy to talk about and envision striving for peace as a goal, but the methods aren't so clear-cut as everyone wants to imagine. Peace and change has to fought for, even if it means engaging in a battle or a war through violence to defend itself in the face of tyranny.

Non-violence, or Pacifism, seems to avoid the issue of violence to make a difference at first glance, but when people look at modern day Germany, where invaders and criminals who won't return the kindness are brought in by its liberal politicians, the picture isn't as clear as supporters envisioned in the long run.

Pacifists/Nonviolence advocates fail to realize this by either simply ignoring the dangers of tyranny, injustice and "inconvenient truths" altogether, or believing that their refusal to engage in physical violence against tyrants and criminals will somehow change things for the better, all in favor for a vision that likely won't align itself with reality even with decades and centuries of effort and intervention.

Non-violence advocates will cite Gandhi, MLK, and Jesus Christ as the great examples to have ever lived and practiced the concept. In reality, they're just exemplars who are blindly idolized simply through their speeches and narratives of them doing good deeds; they are blocked from harsh criticism (not mockery) simply because of a few platitudes defending dead people. Advocates of non-violence will then use common sense of the deeds the aforementioned figures have done to justify their dogmatism.

In spite of their deaths, nothing has largely changed for the better, let alone for the long-term.

Gandhi in particular was a really ugly case of how being a pacifist can dissimulate one's crimes simply because of the death platitudes. Gandhi in particular was a man who:

• Let his wife die. (“When Gandhi's wife was stricken with pneumonia, British doctors told her husband that a shot of penicillin would heal her; nevertheless, Gandhi refused to have alien medicine injected into her body, and she died. Soon after, Gandhi caught malaria and, relenting from the standard applied to his wife, allowed doctors to save his life with quinine. He also allowed British doctors to perform an appendectomy on him, an alien operation if ever there was one.” )
  • Gandhi was also a sadist who beat his wife and forced her to clean toilets. He mentally tortured his son so much that son ran away from home and converted to Islam. Gandhi's grandson has confirmed all this and more in his autobiography.
• Was racist towards South African
• Hated the lower caste people of India until he gained political clout.
• Let the Muslims in India kill Hindus
• Forced Hindu refugees out of the mosques in cold winter to die.
• Altered Raghupati Raghav song's lyrics by adding this line ‘Ishwar Allah tero naam’
• Was ready to pay large sum of Money to Pakistan govt after partition
• Encouraged the Indian soldiers to join the British Army in WW2
• Gave a statement which says that if hindus are killed by muslim then Hindus should die without fighting
• He forced Netaji out of Congress when he won the INC presidential election What more reason do you want?
• When partitioned happened he went on to the hunger strike until the money which was promised to pak was paid by India during the time when large scale massacre were happening in pakistan.
• wanted the Union Jack to be a part of our (The Indian) Flag after independence.
• served and honoured alongside the British while he was in Africa.
• Sarojini Naidu in her book wrote that large sums of taxpayers money was spent to keep Gandhi poor. While travelling by train the whole third class compartment was booked for him.
• Veer Savarkar in his book wrote that when Gandhi's wife died they started a fund in her name while Gandhi never actually shed a tear for the Indians who died fighting the British.
• Dr BR Ambedkar wrote that he saw the real fangs of Gandhi which he hid under his treacherous smile. Dalit community severely demeaned because of his harijan Idiocracy, lower castes were further pushed into deep shit.
• Wanted a corridor connection between Pakistan and Bangladesh passing through India, just imagine the consequences.
• Gandhi allied with separatists and diluted India's freedom struggle by including the pan-Islamic Khilafat Movement. In 1919, Gandhi and the supporters of ‘Khilafat’ or ‘Caliphate’ or the ‘Islamic State’ movement went to the length of inviting the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India, to convert India as Islamic Caliphate. (https://myvoice.opindia.com/2020/10/gandhiji-the-islamic-caliphate-and-bhagat-singh/amp/)
  • Inflamed by the preachings of the Khilafat Movement, the Mapillas of Kerala, “notorious for their fanaticism”, perpetrated large-scale genocides in 1921 against the Hindus. Gandhi said, “Forcible conversions are terrible but Moplah bravery must command admiration. These Malabaris are not fighting for the love of it. They are fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner they consider themselves religious.” Ambedkar said, “Mr. Gandhi was anxious to preserve Hindu-Moslem unity and did not mind the murders of a few Hindus, if it could be achieved by sacrificing their lives. This attitude to excuse the Muslims any wrong, lest it should injure the cause of unity, is well illustrated by what Mr. Gandhi had to say in the matter of the Mopla riots.”
• Gandhi protested against Sardar Patel as PM, despite Patel being unanimously selected by Congress committee. Gandhi forced Patel to step down by doing hunger fast, and forced Congress to select Nehru as PM instead.
• Slept with had sex with underage girls, his nieces included.
  • You would have seen many photos of Gandhi leaning on young women while walking. Did you see any photos of him leaning on men while walking? One fact Congress hid from our schoolbooks was that Gandhi was a pedophile, who did weird sexual activities, including forcing nubile young women (especially his nieces) to sleep naked with him. These sexual experiments did not stop even after worried Ambedkar, Patel, and even Nehru (the man Gandhi made PM) entreated Gandhi to stop them. Gandhi's niece was so traumatised, that she fell into guilt & depression, distanced herself from him, retreated into seclusion, and she never married (a phenomenon very rare for Hindu women in that era).

Not only was Gandhi was pro-Muslim, he was actually what is essentially part of the Pranami sect, a "Muslim organization cloaked in Hindu guise." This explains everything about Gandhi's pedophilia and his total treachery of Hindus in favor of the British and Islam. Gandhi was a person of Islamic roots masquerading as a Hindu the whole time. Bloody hell... I had a sneaking feeling about religious organizations hiding behind secular appearances late COVID scamdemic, long after the historical choice to separate religion and government was made. In a way, this is truer than I ever imagined it to be. I never expected a Muslim to masquerade as a Hindu to undermine the latter. I have a page explaining Islam here.

Not only are pacifists are wrong about Gandhi in narrative, but they're also wrong about the idea of Non-violence resistance itself. Nonviolent resistance is impractical.

Jesus was a man who condoned atrocities including (but not limited to) murder, genocide, infant slaughter, animal slaughter, slavery, and rape, as can be seen here. Through the church preachers and the Pastors, he was an exemplar his supporters found so inspirational it distracted them from giving attention to the ugly side of him, his family, past supporters, and Christianity as a whole. This is very similar to how Gandhi's current supporters and advocates were distracted by the favorable, inspirational narrative the media and his supporters provided.

Now what about Dr. Martin Luther (Real name:Michael) King? Little do a large number of people know, he was a Communist who also supposedly preached non-violence. Aside of being an accomplice to help a friend of his rape a women in a hotel room, if one of the FBI's investigations are anything to go by. However, he wasn't really a true pacifist like the other two; I'll imply something here: some of the Communist hitmen suspected that he strayed from the path set for him when he actively fought against being a moderate and spouted anti-establishment messages that were enough of a warrant for them to have him killed. Either way, massive riots happened in King's name.

Now that all three exemplars have been mentioned, what is the pattern here? For one, I learned that, Non-violence/pacifism doesn't work as intended, but if I were to think outside the box in regards to such a belief, no connotation included, it's very different.

Throwing out the rule book regarding its usual principles, I'll interpret nonviolence in a different perspective: Using the pacifist/non-violent advocate identity as a (metaphorical) mask is a disturbingly more effective tactic than what is publicly intended because the opponents of such people are bounds by rules, laws, and principles while they themselves have no problems abandoning this at any time; the moral opponents will be (and have been) duped into lowering their guards. Why do people think Jews have been largely unopposed worldwide with the nonviolence movement? Why haven't Christianity and Islam, both religions created by Jews, done anything to stop the immigration crisis?

It's not the violent people that are the problem, like non-violent advocates/Pacifist love to accuse. If anything, this led me to learn something interesting, but equally as nefarious as pacifism being used as a masquerade a day ago:

Jews, Christians and Muslims learned long ago that the best way to be a hypocrite is to dissimulate their sinister goals in public to an ignorant audience.

In power through via a public/secular guise, they'll preach love and kindness, then accuse and slander their critics of the very crimes and acts of violence they've committed behind closed doors while still claiming they're advocates of peace, with the public audience none the wiser. Meanwhile, non-violent advocates themselves will claim violent people have never changed anything and will ignore the tyranny just to stop any violent person from attacking a corrupt government official/banker, thus enabling the latter two groups, criminals and invaders to do as they please.

I'd even go as far as to say that, in refusing to engage in violence to stop tyranny and injustice in fear of worse violence, pacifists/non-violence advocates are some of the most superstitious group of people hiding behind an appearance of principled benevolence, just like their "great exemplar", the Jew, Jesus of Nazareth.

Pacifism is a disease that should've been abolished and made illegal alongside Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Link here: https://corruptstringpullers.blogspot.com/2025/09/i-dont-like-nonviolencepacifism.html

 

[Hp. Hoodedcobra666]

Violence that is blind is just animalistic urges expressed outward without results but instating fear. Fear and the instating of fear lead nowhere in the longterm. Christianity and Islam will collapse because of this.

Our side can never be animalistically violent, as the "supression" or "management" of the ignorant sheep is not in consistence with the tenets or the aims of the Gods. The Gods gain nothing by the world being enslaved; only ego's of humans gain anything from this practice. And these egos are not based on anything important, just animalistic approaches. This process does not elevate anyone to the Godhead.

The Gods demand however Justice.

Justice is not just violence, it's imposing rules for peace. Justice is can both create shock but it also creates security for those invoking it's protection. Security is when one wants to lead and sustain leadership. People can believe in Justice and imposing it, they cannot believe in violence. Pacifism is the death of justice, if justice cannot impose limits in severe situations, people are going to pay the price and definitely the innocent ones most of all.

What you describe here is not "lack of violence" but lack of Justice. Ghandi took "non-violence" to where no justice and no measure was established. Therefore violence fell as a punishment on the people he led [no Justice = no protection].

 

[Rodulf]

"Non-violence", much like gun control, is imposed from the top down. Example: In the UK subjects are basically disarmed and denied the right of self-defense, while the rich elite maintain armed protection teams for themselves. "Non-violence", "Gun control", "Don't take matters into your own hands", etc. are just weaponized hypocrisy, tools of elite psychopaths and are sure indications of society as a degenerated herd of domestic human animals.

 

[Ol argedco luciftias]

Violence in the way that it may need to be used by police or military to enforce justice is some times necessary. Where pacifism is a problem is the pacifism of the justice system in America and Europe where they do not enforce any justice, they allow all kinds of evil and violent criminals to go free, and instead they imprison innocent citizens and victims for just talking about all of these evil things being done. England is the perfect example.