Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Are you committed to non-violence? WHY?

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 7, 2011, 3:19 p.m. EST by sjlowe (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Tell me why you're committed to non-violence. What is your motivation for staying non-violent? I am not being antagonist. I just want someone to respond to this post. How deep does your commitment to non-violence run?



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by CriticalThinker (140) 12 years ago

violence begets violence

[-] 3 points by Maximus420 (7) 12 years ago

Violence is not an effective means for change in today's highly charged and highly wired world. In today's world, non-violence is and should be the only option as it strips the state of it's military advantage and it's greatest propaganda tool - FEAR. They would love nothing more than to instill fear in people to legitimize their strong hand tactics while delegitimizing peaceful protesters effort and goals. The states worst fear is a peaceful protests - with endurance, that are well organized, well funded and have LEGITIMATE DEMANDS that are shared by the majority of people.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 12 years ago

very good point Maximus420, violence is their strength.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

I am committed to non-violence so that I can watch a bunch of clowns spin out trying to drive me to it.

[-] 2 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 12 years ago

Perhaps you have noticed how WELL-ARMED our opposition is...?

Even if I believed in violence as an option, it would be foolish in this modern, militarized world.

But I don't believe in it... either morally, or strategically.

But I don't include "property damage" in any category of "violence". I think the word "violence" only applies to the act of intentionally harming a living being.

Fucking shit up is Not "violence", despite the media's salivating use of the word to describe petty vandalism.

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

I agree that the military is far too well armed and prepared to fear an uprising of the people. To think that hasn't been considered as our freedoms have been eroded and our tax dollars moved into into their own pockets (and those of their bankster buddies) would be rather naive. We have to try to fight this by being cautious with our money and doing everything we can non-violently (hoping that they don't respond to non-violence with violence). I'm not undermining the fact that the public is also well armed and that most military men wouln't turn against their own family and friends, but those things considered, I still don't think there is a balance.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 12 years ago

the fact that "they" are so well-armed and prepared is another reason to worry.

but I'm still in 100% agreement with you...

"I think OWS is hoping to prove that bullying around the world with guns is a primitive and outdated concept. Resorting to using them in the same manner would be counterproductive at least."

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

I am in agreement with you that armed & prepared is a combination which should weigh heavy on our minds.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 12 years ago

You don't think vandalism gives some support to the image of spoiled kids out of control?

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 12 years ago

of course it does (at least to people who are so uninformed and credulous as to mistake what they see on corporate news media as representative of reality).

I didn't comment on vandalism. I was just trying to distinguish between vandalism and "violence".

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 12 years ago

It's only my opinion. Violence simply wouldn't be tolerated by society, public support would likely come down strongly on the side of government and police forces. Most of the people in the country have jobs, live their life and are content. It may be possible to educate them about the injustices in the system, but simply violently attacking that system would drive away any hope of popular support.

Some members are nonviolent to their core, others only for as long as it's expedient. There is no way to tell at present if it's nonviolent members will be able to keep the movement nonviolent or if some group will break away in favor of violent change.

It's a new movement and as much as everyone would like to believe otherwise the truth is it has limited popular support at this time. To some extent support is fading a little and violence at this time would probably splinter the movement and end any chance of positive change it could have had.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

If you look closely at the Declaration of Independence you will find a clearly marked path upon the road to revolution.

We have only begun.

In point of fact, recourse to violence should not be necessary. The mechanisms exist within our system of governance, for the people to assert their will upon those institutions that do serve at their behest.

Should those measures fail, the path of our forefathers is clearly etched, engraved in our culture, our heritage, our history.

Even in our blood.

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 12 years ago

I am, even though watching some videos i find a rage kind of rises up in me and throwing punches is a tempting fantasy, however i feel like if it came to that then it could easily go the way of all out civil war and everything could deteriorate in a hurry, then public support would decline, and all sorts of excuses and justifications could be used against Occupy from the powers that be towards criminalizing the movement as 'terrorists' etc. and be more inclined and forgiven for throwing people in jail indiscriminately without being held accountable. This would also allow them to shift the focus back to 'look how bad and evil these protesters are' propaganda, and would give such a smear campaign more credence in the public eye.

Plus there are historical precedents of militant non violence having success in social movements of similar nature, namely Gandhi. And i think of peace/truth/love etc. as forces in themselves, to keep it and take it to a higher level so to speak will win support for those in the public on the fence. They will look at the situation and see the contrast between how the Occupiers behave, and how the authorities behave and be forced to make a decision, and i believe that they are far more likely to see clearly who is who and what is what, and make what i feel is the right decision, which would be one based on their conscience. Violence would only increase fear as well in general, and fear is what is used to keep people under control in the first place.

My 2 cents.

[-] 1 points by nrama (18) 12 years ago

Violence, distorted aggression, is an abject surrender to base passion. Christ's dictum to turn the other cheek has been thoroughly misunderstood.A morality play put on for my benefit at age 10 may illustrate the true meaning. A little puppy frisking about was approached by a belligerent dog. Unfazed the little pup lay on its back and exposed its belly wriggling playfully. The bigger dog sniffed the little pup and walked away. Many years later when I came across the dictum the scene flashed into memory. The untutored,unlettered little pup had demonstrated to me perfectly the meaning. Many of us do turn the other cheek without the underlying emotional stance most necessary to diffuse a potentially dangerous situation. Having used the method personally I can vouch for the peaceful mien approach.Mind, body and soul must be united in the act. It is a position of true strength.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 12 years ago

I'm committed to non violence unless the government started arresting people without warrants and deprived them a right to a fair trial.

[-] 1 points by Dionysuslives (170) 12 years ago

No, I am committed to whatever tactics I regard as strategically and ethically appropriate given the situational context in which I find myself.

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 12 years ago

It would be strategically inappropriate at this time to be violent. I don't foresee that changing for many reasons. (They are well-armed, we would be doing the thing we are trying to defy.)

we could argue ethics but the strategy is clear.Violence will be self-defeating.

[-] 1 points by afarmer (65) 12 years ago

Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2 states " The privilege of the Wrti of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require".

Will OWS "violence" qualify?

Here's the President Order if a national disaster or economic collapse should occur: http://godfatherpolitics.com/2422/dangerous-executive-orders-still-on-the-books/#ixzz1fVRpkea9

This just released yesterday http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4aQJqzIe8o&feature=g-u

[-] 1 points by randart (498) 12 years ago

I believe in non violence but I also believe those in control only understand violence. They only understand violence through oppression, financial strangulation. and imprisonment.

Sometimes people just have to use whatever means fits for their own interests. I am not suggesting this is the solution but it may be the result in the end.

[-] 1 points by Samsquatch (48) 12 years ago

Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Peaceful demonstration contrasts violent suppression. when peaceful protesters are pepper sprayed on the news it greatly increases support for the movement whereas if the pepper sprayed individuals were violent, people would just think "well thats what you get" and move on in their little bubbles of life. people will only stop when they see injustice being carried out by a violent party on our highest aspiration of peace.

[-] 1 points by ProAntiState (43) 12 years ago

Sunset of the State


Once, the earth was thought to be the center of the universe

with the planets and stars and the sun revolving around it.

As observations improved, though, weird complications began to mess up this model, particularly the orbit of Mars.

As the earth goes around the sun, Mars sometimes appears to move backwards as we overtake it.

In a vain attempt to solve this problem, horrendously complicated circles within circles were created,

tangling up the mathematics in an increasing kaleidoscope of endless overcomplexity.

A few brave thinkers?and brave they had to be in those days?tried putting the sun at the center of the solar system.

Ahh, then everything fell into place at once.

The crazy mess of the Ptolemaic system of circles within circles

and equations piled upon equations evaporated in a moment.

Only a few equations were now needed for perfect accuracy.

The same simplicity and clarity and accuracy was revealed when navigators

accepted that the world was round rather than flat

and when physicists accepted the Einsteinian argument that the speed of light is constant.

Systems based on fundamental falsehoods always get more and more complicated

as endless corrections and adjustments pile on in order to make them look more right.

Every few generations, these accumulated errors become so ridiculously complex

that the entire system becomes unsustainable and kind of embarrassing.

Even the nonexpert grasps that something must be fundamentally wrong with the whole mess,

and a few brave souls take out a blank sheet of paper, push aside all their prior preconceptions,

and start from scratch based on reason and evidence rather than the accumulated errors of history.

The central tenet of all systems of human morality is the nonaggression principle.

We all learn it as children:

don't hit,

don't push,

don't hurt,

don't steal.

We learn that violence and bullying and threats are wrong, immoral,

and only make whatever problem you're trying to solve worse.

That's the rule we're taught when we're kids, and it's a good rule: solid, logical, empirical.

But then, when we get older, if we have the courage to see, we understand that this is not how adult society is run at all.

In adult society, you have to pay a bunch of men and women your money

or they call on other men and women in blue costumes to come and take it,

and, if you try to defend yourself from this theft, they will shoot you.

This is the reality of societies with governments.

Your society.

In statist societies, free exchanges between free adults that some people don't like can get you shot.

If you get a job and try to avoid paying for a nonexistent Ponzi "retirement" plan,

you can be kidnapped and shot if you resist.

If you break any of the hundreds of thousands of made-up rules about trade and barter,

you get arrested.

If you don't want to fund foreign dictators,

you get arrested.

If you don't want to pay for an evil war,

you get arrested.

And on

And on and on

And on and on and on

And on and on and on and on.

When we were kids, our teachers said "don't use violence",

but if, as adults, we don't pay a government teacher's salary,

we get arrested.

As we grow up, the more we look around, the more we see that every "law" is a gun,

and guns are everywhere in the adult world,

and that using violence to get what you want is the foundation of the society we live in.

So, which is it?

Is violence good or bad?

Our statist system has become so ridiculously complicated because it has,

like the earth-centered model of the solar system, a fundamental error right down at the root of it.

This error is the belief that violence is the best way to solve complex social problems;

the delusion that if you point enough guns at enough people, run up enough debt using the unborn as your collateral,

kidnap and enslave enough free souls, that the world will just get better and better and better.

How's that working out for us?

The tax code,

aggressions against free trade and personal consumption,

the endless multiplying laws governing every aspect of our waking lives,

these are like the circles within circles of the earth-centered model of the solar system.

The only end to that increasing complexity is total collapse.

When you recognize that increasing complications reveal core errors at the root of a false system,

you will see that the nonaggression principle needs to move to the center

of our virtues, of our morals, of our society as a whole.

Like the sun itself, it needs to be fixed at the center of everything we do.

The nonaggression principle cannot "orbit" a primitive, violent hierarchy

that we actually inherited from apes and cavemen.

Think of it: a society without organized violence,

without the threat of state coercion,

without institutional kidnapping and theft and imprisonment,

without taxation,

and the thieving predation of state fiat currency?counterfeiting.

Does that make you dizzy?

It should.

When the sun was moved to the center of the solar system,

where it actually is,

it was disorienting to everyone at the time

just as the time and space relativity of Einsteinian physics was disorienting,

just as evolution is disorienting to many,

and quantum physics messes with the head of anyone who really grasps it.

In the face of ancient falsehoods, the truth is often dizzying and confusing and alien and freaky.

When we place the nonaggression principle where it should be,

at the center of morality and society,

beliefs we have held for tens of thousands of years suddenly evaporate.

The ancient error of the morally-justified state crumbles into its component atoms of evil.

The dizzying and multiplying complexity of law upon law,

gun upon gun,

murder upon murder,

all this ugly mess is revealed as hysterical attempts to cover up the core crime of justified, institutional violence.

The myth of the social contract is revealed as a gun to the necks of the unborn.

Laws are exposed as well-armed prejudices.

Taxation is revealed as theft,

lobbying as bribery,

arrest as kidnapping,

governments and armies as the most successful criminal gangs,

and schools as violence-fueled indoctrination camps for helpless and dependent children.

It is disorienting, it is confusing, it is frightening, it is dizzying, and it is true.

The sunlight of reason and morality and truth is essential:

it must be at the center of everything we do

because, in society, just as in the world, the sun is either going up or it is going down,

perhaps to a night without another sunrise.

Whether the dim light of our modern world is a sunset or a sunrise, that is up to you.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Non-violence will gain you the respect and understanding of others.

Violence will gain you the contempt and revulsion of others.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago
  1. Violence is what predators do. People seeking justice are not predators. They are seeking to be freed from predators.

  2. Politically, non-violence is the moral high ground of any discussion. People who threaten Second Amendment violence against politicians and police have no confidence in the moral high ground of their political values and so try to use the force of threats and violence to coerce and intimidate others into capitulating to them rather than depending on the moral high ground of their political positions to persuade others to their side.

[-] 1 points by billyson (18) 12 years ago

History indicates that non violent resistance has a greater chance of success with much less loss of human lives. activist http://simurl.com/mavtad

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

That's very true, but the problem with violence is that it only really works if you have enough disciplined, well-armed people on your side to take on and beat almost arbitrarily large police forces and enough widespread popular support that it becomes impossible for your opponent to take and hold the land. The way the American political process works, if we get half as much popular support as we would need for a violent revolution to be anything but utter suicide we'd have more than enough support to take control of the country via the electoral process the way it's intended to be done.

Everybody is scared shitless of losing their rights to some form of repression or tyranny; most of the ordinary people who are economically conservative aren't masochists. They vote the way they do because they (falsely) fear the loss of one set of economic rights as much as we hate the loss of the same rights. When violence erupts in the streets the only rights you have are those you can enforce with your fists and your weapons.

In some ways that's scarier than a standard tyranny, because at least in that situation you have a general idea of the origins and scope of truly random abuse, and you know what to say/think and what not to say/think to dodge targeted repression. In the case of street violence anyone and everyone is fair game for whoever has a gun and a bad attitude and thus anyone can lose everything in the blink of an eye. Present to the people the real possibility of street violence and the backlash you'll get from them will be strong enough that they might incite or encourage violence against us just to eliminate the threat that such violence might occur near them.


[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 12 years ago

I don't believe in violence because it's sinking to a despicably low-level. If our ideas and our vision is not powerful enough, then maybe we're "wrong". It's the commitment to the ideas & ideals that makes me insist on a non-violent method. Really, if you have to use a gun to get your way, you probably don't deserve to have things your way.

Besides... things are not THAT bad. Don't get me wrong... they're bad! But "we" are not being killed or imprisoned-- at least not in en mass, completely indiscriminately.

Not yet anyway.

[-] 2 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

"Not yet" being the key phrase there. They are legislating on that point so keep an eye out for indiscriminate imprisonment without a trial in "coming attractions". In a world where the opportunity for profit has overshadowed freedom... I guess it's not a far cry from privatizing prisons and restricting the freedom of individuals in order to fill them for profit. I think OWS is hoping to prove that bullying around the world with guns is a primitive and outdated concept. Resorting to using them in the same manner would be counterproductive at least.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 12 years ago

"I think OWS is hoping to prove that bullying around the world with guns is a primitive and outdated concept. Resorting to using them in the same manner would be counterproductive at least."

VERY well said!

p.s. I'm aware of the pending legislation on "indefinite detention" (without a trial!?!) and I have already written to the President saying that if he doesn't veto this bill, "they" should prepare to detain me because I consider all such tyranny a sworn enemy.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

@beamerbikeclub. Well done. It is important that people take personal action like you have. It really pays to take a strong stance and say that the issue is that important to you that you are writing to him personally. Most people assume that other people are doing this sort of thing. Well, they don't. As GE says in its company slogans "Just do it".

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

Thanks. That's great that you have written to the President about this insane pending legislation. Are you aware of any group petitions on the matter? One definitely needs to be in the works, I just don't want to be redundant. If this legislation goes through unchallenged, it just may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 12 years ago

I just checked to see how my senators voted and then sent an email to the White House. Probably completely ineffective, except perhaps to get my name on a "no fly" list or something.

Our Democracy is broken. I try to stay hopeful but I guess it's more likely that things will get a lot worse before they get any better.

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

There's at least a chance of effectiveness. Doing nothing will certainly yield no results. And lol about the no fly list. I worry about that myself. I'm sure I'm on some kind dissenting minded individuals list ;)

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 12 years ago

isn't it crazy that we even have to be so paranoid?! When Bush declared "You're either with us or against us" I also wrote to him. Just to clarify any doubts he might have been harboring! : )

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

With the legislation slithering through, I wouldn't call it paranoia (especially with the latest legislation declaring anyone that acts against the government officially an enemy). At least some of your fellow citizens are paying attention now.

[-] 2 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 12 years ago

yup. there are still Some Americans left.

see you at the barricades.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 12 years ago

Nonviolence is the only method that can bring people over to your point of view.


[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

Because non violence is working. We are slowly bring the 99% onto our side. Beside, the churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. support us strongly. We think that society is broken, and so do a lot of others. We are leaderless and non political. That means anyone can join us, and anyone can be involved. In traditional political movements, people outside the group would not be able to join, and if they did join, the leaders are already in place and must be obeyed, even worshipped.

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

It is slowly working. Even Obama is picking up more OWeSque rhetoric. I'm not sure if he's being truer to himself now that the people are showing some backbone or whether he's just clinging to the protesters to garner re-election support...

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

Great. I wish Obama would show some backbone also. I remember Bush came into power vowing to help disadvantaged people also. His face said that he was genuine about this. Unfortunately, these leaders soon get bogged down in "bigger issues" and forget why they took on the job. The Occupy Movement is there to remind them about their commitment to fairness.

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

I hope so too. We all could use someone on our side!

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

"We are slowly bringing the 99% onto our side. Beside, the churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. support us strongly", writes Occupy Center.

ABSOLUTELY! Every new day shows our PATIENCE being rewarded. It took almost 2 months, but the Archbishop of Canterbury expressed strong support for the "Occupy" Movement, after the very conservative Pope Benedict issued a decidely progressive statement in favor of Social Justice.

And just last week, former Canadian Finance Minister and Prime Minister Paul Martin unexpectedly paid a visit to "Occupy Montreal" and came out strongly in favor of the Movement.

IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME til people come around to the COMMON SENSE ROUTE, the RETURN TO SANITY that OWS is advocating.

Occupy SANITY!

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

Good one, Tiouaise. That is FANTASTIC that Paul Martin came out in favour of the Movement. A lot of people know goodness when they see it.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

"A lot of people know goodness when they see it", writes Occupy Center.

Exactly. Religious people would say that, being created "in God's image and in His likeness", we all come into this world with a blueprint of the Good, the True and the Beautiful.

I have faith that gradually a strong majority of people will come to their senses... even among the 1%. Paul Martin is a billionaire businessman, but I guess his heart told him that OWS IS RIGHT. Martin not only came out in favour of OWS, but is advocating "wealth redistribution programs"!


[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

Occupy SANITY!


I may find this difficult . . .

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

:o) Well... isn't that the TERMINUS AD QUEM that all of us humans are aspiring to?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I'm not sure the rest of humanity is ready for the outer limit . . .

It may be the ultimate, for some even final, but en mass? we aren't ready . . .

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

I realize it's a tall order.... but what's the alternative? INSANITY? Collective SELF-DESTRUCTION?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago


I mean, it is but one possibility

but no.

I was operating under the assumption that I had already found the outer limit and have some small difficulty regaining terra firma . . .

never mind.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

"Occupy SANITY!" exactly

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Define "support" as you see it.

I might agree with your frustrations and your desire to change things. But I can at the same time completely disagree with how you choose to vent or display your feelings AND/OR what you plan to do to change things.

It's only logical and reasonable to conclude that if the majority of Americans are good people with the ability to observe and analyze current events, that they SHOULD BE-and most likely are-frustrated and wanting change. Duh.

It is NOT logical and reasonable to conclude that agreement with your FEELINGS or your point of view is equal to being in agreement with how you choose to express or handle those feelings OR with how you decide to change things.

You want change. I want change.=we both want change. You want to change all things to be purple. I do not want to change all things to be purple. =we do not agree on this kind of change.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

"We are slowly bring the 99% onto our side" lol. i am the 99% homie. you say it like you are an outsider to the group. make a lot of money do you? nobody needs to join either. i don't think you understand what the 99% represents.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

Huh? I am not an outsider to the group. Clearly many people of the 99% are not part of the Movement, and don't like us. This is reality. I see it all the time. I do also see that day by day we are gathering support. More and more people see that what we are saying affects them also.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

no, many of the 99% don't like OWS. OWS is not the entire movement. 99% also includes the tea party, people not protesting at all. do you understand what is meant by "The 99%"?

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

I do know what is meant by the 99%. I also know that most people in the Tea Party Movement are also in the 99%. It is also quite possible for Tea Party people to be members of Occupy, and vice versa. It is not important to be liked either. I have no doubt that people probably like successful bank executives, but that doesn't mean that they are good people. It is a bit like Mandella and Ghandi. They were both branded as criminals and most unpopular. However, when people saw what they were on about, they followed their ideals.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

because violence only serves up our hard work in the form of profits to the 1%

[-] 0 points by owsleader2011 (304) 12 years ago

Just saying folks cuz this debate is so one sided, and the OWS crowd is generally so young, but this whole non-violence gig has been going on the since the 1960's and I haven't seen one damn win for the left in 50 years.

The founding fathers said that ever few generations that blood would spill.

Our government was designed for such.

Non-Violence is fine, but the occupying power is violent, the SHEEP will only overcome with violence.

Just saying.

Good luck telling for an un-armed man telling the armed man to drop his gun, maybe happen in fairy-tales or on TV, but not much reality. In general the armed take what they want, when they want.

Probably the one great thing, that right-wing knows and escapes the left wing is the masses still have that right-to-be armed. Unlike almost any other country where the citizens don't have that right.

It's a fact the LEFT has made no progress against the right, but keep up the talk, and talk, and talk, in the mean time the POWER ( GOLDMAN-SACHS ) will be sending the man with the GUN out to kick your asses. The cycle has no ending.

There's only one way out I can see, but it ain't got NOTHING to do with OWS, its only cuz the US-DOLLAR will collapse and GS can't pay the cops anymore. That's the only thing that will kill the police state. If the dollar don't collapse then the police state will just continue to get more Orwellian everyday, cuz GOOD-MEN don't run for office in our country, and good men don't run the cop-shops.

All US power is sociopath, and psychopath, those folks only understand one thing 'force'. Power like GS knows that you make the biggest BULLY in the playground the cop. You can't take the BULLY down by be rational, sweet, kind, or intelligent. The BULLY only understands FORCE.

[-] 0 points by SmithGoesWashington (72) 12 years ago

What a beautiful collection of deep understanding. Mine is a repeat of others, perhaps.

An agent of change should plan in a way to take as much proponent as possible to be able to enforce changes that he has planned for. Non-violent activism guarantees the maximum of participants with the least of training.

When the level of violence increases, that number starts to decrease and if it continues the action gradually will be labelled as terrorism. A serious blow imposed on the intellectual activism in Western Europe due to adoption of very violent methods of terrorism during 1965-1975; that isolated and defeated a pan-Western-European mass movement.

Similarly a Jihadist violent movement was introduced among Muslims to prevent its extension as a tool of peace and change in poor countries.

Non-violence means do as much as you afford to push changes ahead.

Of Mice and Men: Movement is a delicate woman not a mouse. Softly, take care of it.