Liberals claim to have discovered amazing new principles of political change. Chief among these is that socialism and national liberation can – and usually will – come about without any violence in the struggle.

It is true that the liberals are currently having difficulties identifying any historical examples to validate their radical new theory but in a brilliant departure from traditional ways of thinking they say they don’t have to rely on history at all.

“Besides,” as Bel Eaver said in a discussion held to announce the new theoretical framework, “just because it didn’t happen before doesn’t mean it can’t ever.”

This is of course theoretically true and difficult to counter. One who attempted to do so during the discussion stated that just because no-one had (so far as is known) survived a direct hit by a high explosive tank shell, didn’t mean no-one ever would. He was clearly being sarcastic.

Bel Eaver didn’t deign to rise to the bait, just calling him a “hidebound doctrinaire” and walking away from the provocative individual.

“It’s so liberating not to have to read boring old history,” said Ivan Luzion. “This way is so much simpler. We simply desire what we want to be true about politics and economics and then assert it.”

“So, for example, we want change to be possible peacefully, so we insist that it is. Naturally, having asserted it, we won’t be using violence to achieve change.”

But what happens if violence is used against you when you’re advocating change? “Using violence in response just breeds more violence,” says Rosie Vue, “And it gives the authorities the excuse to use violence in return.”

“But have there not been many incidents of those in power using violence against peaceful protest?” asked another doubter. “Where did the violence being used against peaceful advocates of change come from in the first place?”

“And did the violence used against the Nazis breed more violence – or actually end it?” Asked another, adding: “If we don’t respond to violence and they kill our best activists and put the rest in jail – what then?”

Ivan Luzion maintains that these “what-ifs” are merely objections thrown in by people who oppose the newly-discovered principles and don’t want to give them a chance. “But neither they nor their pedantic historians will prevent us spreading these principles,” said Bel Eaver.

End.