Yep. Basically, use your enemy's moral code against him. That is what makes fighting against the Left so difficult sometimes – they don't have a moral code, at all. Fighting them requires, y'know, actual FIGHTING, and that requires courage and backbone. These things are suspiciously lacking in large parts of the Right these days.

As in: we sent you one of "our best men" to negotiate with you arseholes peacefully, and you did despicable things to him?

Then the switch flips, and the violence is now fully on.

As for Gandhi, he was a simpleton employed by more violent people to behave as a pacifist "negotiator" who in many ways distracted the British from the more violent aims of his backers.

"The only way to stop violent people …"

… is to escalate the violence in such a way that those people are afraid of what you're still holding back.

Some people's methods of escalation into total violence may in fact look a lot like an amplification of the present pandemic, which leads me to wonder whether this was an exercise in preparing for the worst that is yet to come.

A few stacks of bricks conveniently coated in highly transmissible pathogens, and some people "protesting" conveniently do the busy work for you, for instance …

After all, there are no innocents who would even get near those stacks of bricks, let alone pick up any of them.

But just because you don't see the anger doesn't mean that it's not there, and highly effective people are very much used to channelling their anger into things that resemble productive works.

Or, on occasion, a few destructive works, but with a different purpose.

I suspect all of the best countermeasures toward the violence of savages look like the kind of choice where someone wishes to view the Videodrome broadcast: you weren't an innocent in wanting this, and only those who are bent in such ways that they're incompatible with a stronger society would want to even have a taste.

So there's a teachable lesson here that the police tend to know best: everyone at one of these "protests" that "turns violent" is in some way responsible for the violence, especially those who "protest" by means of "non-violence", because it's those people who serve as human shields.

The true innocents stay away and make preparations for when the violence is on their own doorsteps.

As for moral causes, I'm not looking for any.

If I have to get involved, my recourse is to savage beatings for everyone so I can get back to things that matter to me a lot more than the narcissistic pursuit of grievances for small differences. Obviously those people would have made a choice to seek me out as a source for a final solution toward their open-ended violence.

Naturally this would begin with shooting their negotiator or putative leader, because no pretences should be made toward engaging violent people peacefully.

But reimagine genocide in a technological age: with the right technology, genocide becomes self-selecting according to choice.

Why not supply the means by which your enemies may choose to take themselves out?

Think of it as evolution in action.