Of course a peacenik group is going to say something to the effect of "We don't believe in violence, unlike Group X." That's part of the whole idea of being peaceful.

Granted, it probably wouldn't have been so effective, if they hadn't already had so many allies in media, academia, and law.

And finance.

Are you saying it was all a comspiracy amongst the various groups, violent and non-violent?

As well as the media, finance, etc.?

It was heavily compartmentalized, but no doubt their were networkers between both who knew what the grand strategy concerned.

*[citation needed]*

<:Doubt:588038713938804760>

Look into communist and socialist connections in media, academia and law, it's a big component of it. As well as those associations where they overlapped in social justice advocacy, and anti-racism.

Compare it to modern antifa, and the left academics. They're still doing it today.

I've no doubt there's strains of socialism in the various groups—especially given Soviet tendancies and the ongoing Cold War—but that's quite the leap. And I'm certain MLK and other peace advocates weren't perfect. But that doesn't mean it was all one huge plot. Sometimes revolutions are organic, and come about through natural forces—death being preferrable to inaction, et cetera.

Antifa may be more centralized than they let on, but they still have their various cells. They're a more modern beast anyway, and certainly like their violence.

@Goodwood of Dank™ This is far from an exhaustive analysis, but it does explore the connection between MLKJ and the communist/socialist elements in finance, and law.
https://youtu.be/OGUNHsh4Ax8

Antifa has always liked their violence.

They're most effective when operating in tandem with compatriots who have infiltrated a nation's institutions, however.

"saints of the 20th Century." Oh boy, I can see where this is going...

"white people usually run away from ethnic diversity, and rightly so." Woof!

Feel free to prove him wrong by moving to an area with maximum diversity.

You can't disprove a non-argument.

Translation: "I'm too afraid of living around black people to put my life where my mouth is."

Aidspiggery.

I don't think you know what that means.

"bolsheviks"

I do. You're arguing the signifier rather than the signified. Also, turning a joke into an argument.

If diversity is an immaterial concern, then what's wrong with moving there?

Not gonna watch any more. Got to 4:15 and haven't seen anything but assertion after assertion.

Not even gonna bother looking any of this up? Okay.

Because I can't simply pull up stakes at a whim, retard.

What a racist.

Wow. What an original retort.

Not willing to inconvenience yourself a bit to prove how great diversity is.

I'm appalled.

Did you just assume my ideology?

Because I'm starting to think you're assuming my ideology.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I happen to identify as an attack helicpoter, thank you very much.

What do you think I'm assuming, and how is it wrong?

You assume I brought up that line as a rebuttal, when I simply pointed it out as poor rhetoric. TBH it was a big clue as to this guy's mindset; mixed with the rest of his framing, it really gets the old noggin joggin.

I've delt with southerners of his ilk before, you see.

So, you're put off by something you assumed *about* his argument, rather than the factual correctness of what he's stating?

>of his ilk