No matter how much we may talk about kindness, 
no matter how much we may practice it elsewhere, 
as long as we demand that living, feeling individuals 
be harmed and killed for our pleasure
as long as we choose violence over compassion
then we do not live a good or just life. 
Far greater than the sum of our good acts 
is the trail of blood, suffering and death 
we willfully and needlessly leave behind us.” 
- Ashley Capps

Mahatma Gandhi is a man who is widely praised and remembered for his mission for freedom and Liberation. His influence on Martin Luther King Jr. is often spoken about in mainstream education but what they never tell you is that Gandhi DID NOT LIKE nor RESPECT BLACK PEOPLE. He believed that Indians and their white oppressors were superior to Blacks. In fact, the word Mahatma means “Great Soul” so I am even reluctant to call him that. He is quoted several times referring to Africans as “Kaffirs”; a word that is equivalent to the “N” word. He believed that Africans were uncivilized savages BY NATURE and needed to be saved. Doesn’t that sound familiar? Gandhi described us as troublesome, very dirty, and living like animals.  He had a serious problem with Africans living among his people and wanted the two to be segregated. In 1904, he would to protest the placing of Africans in his city saying, “Ours is one continued struggle sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir. Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension.” He believed it was the greatest form of disrespect for White people to consider Indians the same as Black People. It is very important that we see through some of the illusions that are thrown our way. Black people Stop praising Gandhi. If he was still here, he would not be praising you.

 Written by @KingKwajo

I would not look upon anger as something foreign to me that I have to fight. I have to deal with my anger with care, with love, with tenderness, with nonviolence. A further sign of health is that we don’t become undone by fear and trembling, but we take it as a message that it’s time to stop struggling and look directly at what’s threatening us.
—  Pema Chodron

I’m going to say this crystal clear, any action Palestinians take whether it be nonviolent or violent against Israel will be an act of self-defense. EVERY ACTION TAKEN BY PALESTINIANS AGAINST ISRAEL IS AN ACT OF SELF-DEFENSE. The oppressed have the right to use whatever means necessary to liberate themselves! 

Why It’s Unethical To Eat Animals

Picture: Best girlfriends Kayli and Maybelle at Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary.

"In any discussion concerning the ethics of eating animals, it’s important to begin by considering a frequently overlooked distinction: that harming and killing animals from necessity is not morally equivalent to harming and killing animals for pleasure. Just as shooting someone in self-defense is not commensurate with shooting someone to satisfy a sadistic urge— killing animals for food when we have no other choice for survival is not morally equivalent to killing animals when we have plentiful alternatives. Violence committed to save a life is never analogous to violence committed for pleasure or profit.”

If I hear one more carnist saying ‘yeah but I don’t push my beliefs on others so why do you’ i’m going to scream. Here’s my reply to you and if you can’t understand then you’re morally bankrupt and I hate you.

The thing you mouth-breathing half-wits can’t seem to grasp is that veganism isn’t some fad diet, it’s a social movement. A social movement whose goal it is to gain popular support in order to lobby against the atrocities committed against animals. Vegans feel compelled to speak out and to break through the denial.

Historically, social justice revolutions (for example the abolition of slavery, and the instatement of democracy) have been championed by people who refused to live in denial and refused to be silenced by an oppressive system. Our goal as vegan activists is to transform denial into awareness. That’s why we want our beliefs to be heard. You wouldn’t expect a climate change activist to sit down and shut up about climate change, or a women’s rights activist to never bring up feminism in conversation. It’s something that we’re passionate about and we refuse to be silenced.

How do you deal with the perverted, disease-bearing, voracious bastard who wants to cast his image over all things, eat from every plate at every table, police the world with racist shibboleths and a dying doctrine of marketplaces peopled by monopolies, top-heavy bureaus, and scum-swilling pigs to gun down any who would object?

The concept of nonviolent protest, whatever political forms it may take, presumes two things about the imperialist establishment that are so obviously historically unrealistic, so logically unsound that the espousal of any purely nonviolent anti-establishment moan reduces one automatically to the absurd, and any strong espousal of the purely nonviolent anti-establishment policy reduces one automatically to a corpse.

The first presumption is mercy. It presumes the possible existence of mercy on the part of a breed whose heart is as cold as the snows. It presumes existence of a restraint mechanism that in other breeds and other animals precludes the harming of one’s kind unless placed under the most extreme compulsion of self-preservation. But history shows no justification for so wild a presupposition. I refer you to Leopold II’s Congo, the Indian wars of the last century, the Union of South Africa, Sharpsville, the Philippines at the turn of the century. I refer you to Germany during the depression and war years. I refer you to Vietnam! Just a cursory reading of history and just a glance about me now would show-that I could expect more mercy from a pack of Bengal Tigers. Any claims that nonviolent, purely nonviolent political agitation has served to force back the legions of capitalist expansion are false. The theory of nonviolence is a false idea. The Hindus failed because of this moral aspect in their characters precluding any large-scale organized violence. The forms of slavery merely changed for them. Of what value is quasi-political control if the capitalists are allowed to hold on to the people’s whole means of subsistence?! And in the case of India and foreign capitalists, have any of the people’s needs been met? Do they still have race riots, do they still sleep in the streets? These people were betrayed by false leaders with false ideals. Compare India with China. They were both supposedly liberated at the same time, India may have had a year or more of what is loosely termed “political self-determination”. China’s problems in the late forties were ten times more severe, but today there is no one hungry in China. For the first time its population is united and organized under a government as decentralized and representative as a huge modern industrial based society can be. China, land of the coolie, slave labor, open-door policies, floor mat of the West-they’re vying for first place in every important economic sector today. Remember the 1839 Opium War, the Boxer Rebellion. A trial of combat with China today would be Russian roulette with a fully loaded .45 automatic, self-destruction, suicide.

All the third world political movements that are forcing the retreat of colonialism have learned to deal with the expeditionary armies of colonialism. There is no case of successful liberation without violence. How could you neutralize an army without violence?

The people of the U.S. are held in the throes of a form of colonialism. Control of their subsistence and nearly every aspect of the circumstances surrounding their existence has passed into the hands of a clearly distinct and alienated oligarchy. If today’s young revolutionary vanguard are not merely entertaining themselves with a new kind of “Chicken,” a political form of bumper tag, if they seriously intend to step out front and take the monster to task, they should understand from the outset that the monster is merciless.

Pure nonviolence as a political idea, then, is absurd: Politics is violence. It may serve out purpose to claim nonviolence, but we must never delude ourselves into thinking that we can seize power from a position of weakness, with half measures, polite programs, righteous indignation, loud entreaties.


George Jackson on nonviolence.

Taken from his book “Soledad Brother: The Prison Writings of George Jackson.” (pages 223-225)