No worries. Also reminds me about Roger Hallam's sage advice to the Palestinians which I think we talked about before:

'This is the hidden and dark origin of the modern notion of nonviolence. Not the shallow contemporary obsession with “what works”. Love works because it does not work. It only works when it is done for itself. Only the very few receive the gift of this realisation but society is always redeemed by the actions of the very few.

For Gaza love in action would require a hundred people to sit by the road and stop eating and drinking. When asked what they are doing, they would say they are waiting to die, or the killing needs to stop. They would win because love is prepared to die for love. And many of the hundred might indeed die before love shames those doing the killing to stop. They are warriors of god.

Of course, people will be outraged. But why object to a few people dying for love when thousands die for hate?

To be clear then; love is only love when it is for itself; because love is god and god is for god. Infinite.

And those who die for love, with mayhem happening all around them, will have a smile on their face. They have entered the Kingdom as it was once called. Reunited with the One. At peace at last.' - https://rogerhallam.com/gaza-on-love-and-forgiveness/

A peculiar kind of sickness in the liberal mind when it preaches nonviolence to the oppressed. It's like they're bragging about being ineffective, that even to think that what you're doing should have some kind of chance of success and create some practical change or relief in the short term is somehow unenlightened or a failure of spiritual purity. They think they're above it all basically, and when the lower orders fail to live up to the standards they demand they're often more angry about those resisting than with those using violence against them. Gandhi was especially bad on this, eg:

'On 6 April [1919] there were general strikes in most Indian towns and cities with widespread displays of Hindu-Muslim unity. The protests were generally peaceful, although there were some clashes, particularly in Punjab, where the governor, Michael O’Dwyer, was a strong proponent of repression. When Gandhi was arrested (he was soon released) to stop him travelling to Punjab, however, serious rioting broke out. In Ahmedabad the textile workers took to the streets, fighting with the police and burning down government buildings, offices and police stations (51 buildings were destroyed). By the time the police had regained control of the city, 28 people had been killed, including a British police sergeant. There was a two-day general strike in Bombay on 10 and 11 April that went off without violence, but in Calcutta on the 12th troops machine-gunned a crowd, killing nine people. Gandhi was appalled by the violence which he blamed on the people rather than the police. According to his doctrine, there should never be retaliation against police attack. indeed, on 14 April he wrote to the viceroy to condemn events in Ahmedabad as “utter lawlessness bordering almost on Bolshevism”. He expressed “the deepest humiliation and regret” that the people were not yet ready for non-violence, that he had “underrated the power of hatred and ill will”. This completely ignored the fact that deaths and injuries were overwhelmingly inflicted by the police and troops' - John Newsinger, 'The Blood Never Dried', p.111

cheers,
I