The thing about history and power is that there's always enough lies to tell any story you want to.

But generally 'peaceful' movements work best as a visible face to allow power a graceful surrender. Which means you guys get all the credit and a ton of divisive fuvking sanctimony while people willing to push in more radical ways get a little bit of night watchman syndrome. Dont let that shit work. If you try to discredit your allies, you're working for the enemy.

Theres a value in that option for non-humiliating surrender, in many cases. It's generally been a great need-for-force-divider¹ but when you're up against nazis, people with not an ounce of grace subtlety or sportsmanship within them, who do not get yo feel big for listening to people and changing course, it has not historically been useful. To them even communication is kind of an attack, so there is no way to disagree with civility, and the whole mechanism of peaceful opposition is undermined.

Your enemy, who they are, what drives them, and their horizons of action are absolutely factors that need to be taken into account when choosing strategy. These guys get hard when they think of shooting into a crowd.

The doctrine and driving force behind your people is also fucking important. It's more than just having people/not having people. A shitlib who wants to be at the party, a conscript who doesnt want to be hunted as a deserter, someone with a particular interest, and a die hard true believer, all have different horizons of action and lengths they'll push to, or be pushed to before breaking.

I do think this would have been important and the most effective thing against the biden regime, or a hypothetical harris regime, but i doubt we wouldve gotten it.

I agree violence is fucking scary and I'd rather not. I just don't think that's on the table.

¹effectively force multiplier