I cry

Big difference between saying this and PICKING A COP FOR VP. If/when he gets removed from office for dementia related reasons we will set a new standard as a POLICE STATE.

Perseid meteor shower tonight. Enjoy.

Bunpile is a channel run by an active, rifle toting, community building, Kurdish revolutionary. He is compassionate and insightful. He is very likely to die in a firefight protecting the autonomy of his region and his people. These are his words.

I don't want to create more infighting but...

I see a lot of folks around, and i personally have some friends, that while defining themselves as "Anarchist", at the same time they oppose (or directly refuse) the argument that we should be able to inflict extreme violence to the elements in our society that are actively trying to eliminate us.

A lot of them define themselves (and we should also define them in such way) as "Punk-anarchist" or some other dumb label.
They embrace the ideology without having a clear understanding of the basic values and concepts of it. They are not willing to fight for it, and they mentality refuse to understand it more deeply.
Their ideological approach is completely corrupted by their liberal mentality, they use the ideology as a way to personalize more their (probably shallow) personality. These individuals should not be taken in consideration and shall be ostracized and removed from our dialog, they are not comrades, they are liberal in disguise, they are wearing the symbols without being willing to give blood for them.

Others, while being anarchist, so while having a more clear and genuine understanding of the ideology, they still fall in the same trap.
The root of the problem still lays in the liberal ideology that surround us and is deep marked in our brain. But it's still possible to leave this mental trap, the only way is to understand deeply what is liberalism and in which way it affects our mind. There's no such things as Pacifist-anarchism, pacifism itself as a form of struggle against the system is a lie.
The idea that we are able to struggle against the system without the use of violence is a malicious idea that the system itself (Capitalist modernity) wants to spread with its official ideology (liberalism).
It's not obvious that a system that maintains with all its strength the monopoly on violence would profit by spreading the lie that non-violence could be the answer?

I laugh when i find "comrades" that think that dehumanizig the enemy is wrong and at the same time they call themselves revolutionary or at least they say that they would support a revolution as a way to impose our system.

We cannot fall in the wrong mindset of considering the enemy human, how can the enemy be even human?
The financial elites and their drones are, consciously or not, actively working in destroying the planet and our society, they want to erase the moral values that define our essence as human beings and they want to replace them with false values in order to support and stabilize the system that keep them in place.

It's clear that the continuing of capitalist modernity will cause our extinction, by creating a natural catastrophe and by erasing our natural moral values.
So how can we see them as members of our race? They are a malicious parasitic element inside us. And this kind parasites should be eliminated before it is too late.
It's not a matter of violence, it's a matter of self defense.

We have to understand that if we are willingly talking about revolutionary struggle, we must accept the revolutionary reality of it. If you are not willing to take up a rifle, if you are not even willing to accept the truth that you will be required to do violence, what revolutionary are you?
The sooner we resolve and we escape from this mental trap of Pacifism and non commitment the better, the time for saving our race and our society is not infinite.

The noblest fate that a human should pursue is to use his own invidual mortal self in order to save, protect and maintain the collective well-being of the human race and planet

I have mixed feelings about this, but feel there is insight to be gained in analyzing where my views differ and why they may differ.

I'd first like to agree that people demanding pacifism of a movement are not to be trusted. Strict pacifists are willing to die to see that the oppressing class is unharmed, and not willing to intervene to protect an oppressed class. This puts them firmly in the camp of the oppressors.

However, dismissing nonviolent individuals as wholly ineffective liberal infiltration ignores the effectiveness of underground railroads, information warfare, community support, and labor sabotage. All forms of resistance are valid so long as all participants are willing to support one another. In a setting where acts of physical resistance are provoked as a way to excuse executions and incarceration, nonviolent resistance becomes the predominant form of resistance.

I've been reading some theory recently, so I'd like to echo the views of Malatesta:

"We neither seek to impose anything by force nor do we wish to submit to a violent imposition. We intend to use force against government, because it is by force that we are kept in subjection by government. We intend to expropriate the owners of property because it is by force that they withhold the raw materials and wealth, which is the fruit of human labor, and use it to oblige others to work in their interest. We shall resist with force whoever would wish by force, to retain or regain the means to impose his will and exploit the labor of others."

Malatesta defends revolutionary violence and critiques the three other common perspectives of violence.

Pacifism is described as terrifically selfish betrayal of the cause of the oppressed, allowing others to suffer without trying to come to their defense while reassuring oppressors against the fear of rebellion. Poetically, they are referenced as "sterile dreamers, who leave untouched all the existing evils, and do good to no one, for fear of doing wrong to anyone.”

Another concept criticised is that violence should be reserved for defense in cases of direct and immediate attack. Doing so “would mean the renunciation of all revolutionary initiative, and the reserving of our blows for the petty, and often involuntary agents of the government, while leaving in peace the organizers of, and those chiefly benefited by, government and capitalist exploitation.” The ruling classes don't physically attack us, but are maintained by violence, and as such violence should be warranted. Phrased differently, "as Anarchists, we cannot and we do not desire to employ violence, except in the defence of ourselves and others against oppression. But we claim this right of defence – entire, real, and efficacious. That is, we wish to be able to go behind the material instrument which wounds us, and to attack the hand which wields the instrument, and the head which directs it."

The third view Malatesta comments on is that of celebrated violence. It's part of why I take issue with Comrade GunBunny's views on dehumanization of the enemy. Kropotkin's father was a prince with 1200 male serfs and massive amounts of land. Dehumanization of an entire class excuses pointless violence. Ideally, the hand of the anarchist “must be like the surgeon who cuts when he must but avoids causing needless suffering.” This isn't to say that attacks on military targets are unjust, just to say that hatred should not be a factor in the decisionmaking. "Let us have no unnecessary victims, not even in the enemy camp. The very purpose on behalf of which we struggle requires us to be kind and humane even in the heat of battle; so I fail to understand how one can fight for a purpose like ours without our being kindly and humane."

In short, punch fascists, love others, and carry a big gun. Our goals as anarchists are to remove violence from human relations as effectively as possible with minimal loss of life.

Easy Caltrops