Violence as a political tactic is both unnecessary and counter-productive. Clearly we don’t recommend it, and we don’t seek it.
But at the same time, we realize that if conditions x, y and z are in place and continue unabated, then violence, as a primordial force in the world-at-large, will be the probable outcome. This violence may channel itself through numerous subcultures, agendas, ideologies and so on. And yet, being primordial, it will transcend all of those. Such is the nature of a primordial force — natural, impersonal, chaotic, and not “political” as most people would understand that term.
Pragmatically speaking, this means that if a targeted demographic is subjected to x,y and z systemically and en masse, then “violence” in its limitless and twisted forms, will be the result. Therefore, without prescribing violence, we may safely (and quite ethically) predict its appearance in the world, as a natural consequence of certain conditions.
And so we, the politically activated non-feminist coalition, will find no profit in promoting, instigating or advocating violence. We are painfully aware that objective conditions will breed violence independently of anything we say, or don’t say, about the situation. So in effect, wedo not need to push the river. It is enough for us to sit upon the bank, gaze upstream, and make note of what the current will deliver.
Hence prediction becomes our weapon, or rather our shield. For it keeps us, the predictors, upon the moral high ground. The other side can either listen, and heed our wise counsel proactively, or carry on with business as usual. If they choose the latter, they will come down on the wrong side of history.
This is somewhat like the Mafia game of “making them an offer they can’t refuse.” But there is a vast difference because, when the Mafia does this, it is a threat of Mafia violence plain and simple.
But when we do this we are issuing no threat of any kind, since the only threatening element is a force majeure, beyond our control. The threat is, therefore, ambient, and we are merely directing attention to what should be obvious. Yet we are making an “offer”, namely, an offer to advise the other side for it’s benefit, and for the benefit of the world. And if they are wise, they will not refuse this. Rather, they will lend an ear. Are we not predicting the eruption of primordial violence, and making it clear how to prevent such a thing?
When we warn of an imminent danger, we discharge our duty. Thereafter, the onus falls upon the other side, and we have only to sit beneath a tree with arms folded, and make note of how the other side measures up. We have summoned them to accountability and responsibility, and our merit in so doing will characterize us, even as their failure to heed the summons would characterize them.
When the other side proffers violence — whether physically or spiritually, openly or by proxy — they choose to be the aggressor. And since the rule is that the aggressor sets the terms of engagement, the non-aggressor is morally entitled, in a pinch, to answer like with like.
Yes, violence becomes an acceptable method of operation only if undertaken in self-defense, and only if the onus of moral transgression is clearly seen to fall upon the other side.
In the end, we wish to keep violence, and all unhappy consequences of the present historical crisis, to an absolute minimum. Accordingly, the other side confronts a moral choice — to either collaborate with such a project, or to hinder it. And whichever road they follow, history will judge them.