Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Facebook bans Gandhi quote on the desirability of private gun ownership as part of revisionist history purge

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 2, 2013, 9:08 a.m. EST by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"The reports are absolutely true. Facebook suspended the Natural News account earlier today after we posted an historical quote from Mohandas Gandhi. The quote reads:

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

This historical quote was apparently too much for Facebook's censors to bear. They suspended our account and gave us a "final warning" that one more violation of their so-called "community guidelines" would result in our account being permanently deactivated."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038484_Gandhi_quote_Facebook_censorship.html#ixzz2GpLqf6bt

This is what we are up against folks, a union of corpoRATs and government officials against the Constitution. That's called fascism.

62 Comments

62 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

I looked at the naturalnews site - there is a lot of infowars / alexjonez type / pro gun conspiracy garbage
including "gun control is genocide"
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=E2BF95DC2CBE9A1ED0E3E5B347911D5E

[-] 3 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

mike adams works for alex jones and runs natural news. they are over the top and look for anything they can twist to suite their agenda. much like the mainstream news they detest.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

thanks for the info

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

That's showbiz...

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

just sick of people looking to these libertarian assholes for answers; they don't have any answers just a bunch of empty rhetoric to sell water filters.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

ALEC!

The anti-Gandhi.

Comments on today's reality?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

I don't agree with censorship of any kind, but in this case - Right On Facebook anyway!!!!!!

This single quote, cherry picked from a lifetime of commitment to non-violence could not be more misleading about Ghandi's beliefs, and in that light I find it deeply offensive.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

Is there any INDEPENDENT confirmation of this?
Not alexjonez & infowars & other conspiracy nuts
"
InfoWars is also now reporting that Facebook is running an across-the-board PURGE of pro-gun accounts. A huge number of accounts are all being systematically disabled or suspended, with all content being wiped clean.
" Last time I checked, facebook is a company & can legally censor anything.

What if I wanted to hang a sign in a gun shop that said
"don't buy guns"

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

I read about this on Mike Adams' site but can't help but wonder if he wasn't making drama of this. We all know that Facebook censors everyone all the time, right? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for anyone to ban Natural News from Facebook over this one particular quote. Doesn't it seem more likely that there were trigger words in the article that their security detected and responded to by suspending their account until the situation could be reviewed by a human? If I'm not mistaken, once the suspension was reviewed, Mike's account was reinstated- something he fails to mention until the end of the article, after all the drama. I think maybe Mike over-reacted a bit. He has a tendency to do that from time to time. Hasn't Natural News been banned from FB before this incident?

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

What are you saying? Facebook either did or did not suspend their account, and did or did not give them "final warning" that one more violation against "community guidelines" would permanently deactivate their account. And then either did or did not demand a color copy of a "government issued identification" in order to reactivate their account. It seems they did.

Who the hell does Facebook think they are? You say they are a private business so can do what they want? Are you sure of that? Under fascism, government and corpoRATs merge.

[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

Anyone who has a facebook account should not be so shocked by censorship or it's true agenda. My gosh, just how ignorant and denial can someone be that they don't expect these types of consequences?

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

What is Facebook's true agenda?

[-] 0 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

Why was this censored? Why do they consider fact to be dangerous? why, why ? fascism is the agenda, in lockstep with obama.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Why don't ya ask FaceBook?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

What's the point of asking about it here?

This isn't facebook.

Did you get lost?

I wouldn't worry too much though, there's plenty of more important issues to discuss on this forum anyway.

So get busy.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

"Arms".......

You can fight without violence.

Gandhi was not pro-gun, anymore than he was pro-violence.

It is revisionist to state that Gandhi was "pro-gun".

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

From the leaflet Gandhi handed out in 1918-

http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL017.PDF

VOL.17 : 26 APRIL, 1918 - APRIL, 1919 p.83-87

"You are all lovers of swaraj; some of you are members of the Home Rule League. One meaning of Home Rule is that we should become partners in the Empire. Today we are a subject people. We do not enjoy all the rights of Englishmen. We are not today partners in the Empire as are Canada, South Africa and Australia. We are a dependency. We want the rights of Englishmen, and we aspire to be as much partners in the Empire as the Dominions overseas. We look forward to a time when we may aspire to the Viceregal office.To bring about such a state of things we should have the ability to defend ourselves, that is, the ability to bear arms and to use them. As long as we have to look to Englishmen for our defence, as long as we are not free from the fear of the military, so long we cannot be regarded as equal partners with Englishmen. It behoves us, therefore, to learn the use of arms and to acquire the ability to defend ourselves."

"If we want to learn the use of arms with the greatest possible despatch, it is our duty to enlist ourselves in the army. There can be no friendship between the brave and the effeminate. We are regarded as a cowardly people. If we want to become free from that reproach, we should learn the use of arms"....

..."I hope also that those who have grown-up sons will not hesitate to send them as recruits. To sacrifice sons in the war ought to be a cause not of pain but of pleasure to brave men. Sacrifice of sons at this hour will be a sacrifice for swaraj."

"To the women, my request is that they should not be alarmed by this appeal but should welcome it. It contains the key to their protection and their honour."

"There are 600 villages in Kheda district. Every village has on an average a population of over1,000. If every village gave at least twenty men, Kheda district would be able to raise an army of 12,000 men. The population of the whole district is seven lakhs and this number will then work out at 1.7 per cent, a rate which is lower than the death rate. If we are not prepared to make even this sacrifice for the Empire, for the sake of swaraj, no wonder that we should be regarded unworthy of it. If every village gives at least twenty men, on their return from the war they will be the living bulwarks of their village. If they fall on the battle-field, they will immortalize themselves, their village and their country, and twenty fresh men will follow their example and offer themselves for national defence".

Though Gandhi stated that he himself would never harm another human being, he did believe in self defense, and was highly irritated that the British had enacted the Arms Act which took personal weapons out of the hands of his countrymen. Gandhi actively recruited the men of India to enlist in the military as a means to procure weapons and become trained with them, and to defend alongside the British as a means to regain their respect and trust.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

"Though Gandhi stated that he himself would never harm another human being, he did believe in self defense."

Gandhi advocated for non-violent resistance, which he called Satyagraha. He advocated "fighting without violence". He loathed passiveness and violence, because both had continually proved to be extremely ineffective at resisting evil.

Remaining non-violent while dying at the hands of a violent person, is far more couragous than lowering one's self to the level evil to preserve your physical being.

Gandhi was not in favor of violence in any situation.

You can fight without violence.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Maybe you need to read more Gandhi.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Maybe you should.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The early Ghandi can have different views than the later Ghandi. I think you're both correct.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

The early gandhi was more ignorant than the later Gandhi, but even in his early days he joined the ambulance corp, that treated ALL persons effected by the Boar Wars in SA.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

“I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence....I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour....But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment.”

“Between Cowardice and Violence,” of the book The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, Ahemadabad, India, Revised Edition, 1967.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

That statement is not an approval of violence, but a disapproval of cowardice. He also notes at the end, the extreme ineffectiveness of violence and the moral objections to violence.

Violence is not only wrong, but extremely ineffective.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I know what it says. And he said given the choice between cowardice and violence, he would ADVISE violence.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

And at the end he advises to pick non-violence over violence as violence IS cowardly.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

He himself drew the distinction between cowardice and violence. He also drew a distinction between himself and India as a nation.

If you can't see the differences, that's your own fault.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

"I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment.”

Did you even read you own post?

Non-violence is infinitely superior to violence. Violence supercedes cowardice. Non-violence supercedes violence.

If you are truly non-violent, then there shouldnt be a very big gap between the cowards and the violent.

[-] -2 points by casella (-3) 1 year ago

You're trying to reason with an agenda drive idiot.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Hey, you're new. How are you?

[-] -3 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Attempting to introduce reason and logic to agenda driven idiots is my agenda. Hope springs eternal.

[-] -1 points by casella (-3) 1 year ago

Good luck !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Wish you success

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago
  1. SPEECH AT RAS June 26, 1918

"Gandhiji began with the assurance that he had not come with the intention of forcing anyone to join the army. As a man trying to practise ahimsadharma, he could compel them not by physical force but only by the force of his love, as also by awakening the feelings of patriotism and true self-interest. He was there to advise them to join the army. The same advice he had taken to himself and had tendered his eldest son, who was married and had five children. He continued:"

"Voluntary recruiting is a key to swaraj and will give us honour and manhood. The honour of women is bound up with it. Today we are unable to protect our women and children even against wild animals. The best way of acquiring the capacity of self-protection is joining the army. Some will ask, ‘Why get killed in France?’ But there is a meaning in being thus killed. When we send our dear ones to the battle-field, the courage and the strength which they will acquire will transform all the villages. The training we can get today we may never get again."

"Mr. Gandhi spoke of Dharala, Vaghris and Patidars in the same breath, as the qualities of Kshatriyas were common to them. He exhorted them to use for the protection of the motherland their valour, which otherwise led to mutual quarrels. Taking the population of a village at one thousand we should have twenty recruits from each village or two per hundred. What are two in a hundred? How many men do cholera and such other diseases take away every year? These men die unmourned except by their relatives. On the other hand, soldiers’ death on the battle-field makes them immortal, if the scriptures are right, and becomes a source of joy and pride to those left behind. From the death of Kshatriyas will be born the guardians of the nation and no Government can withhold arms from such men."

[-] -2 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

His own words say otherwise.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

When did Gandhi ever say:"violence is good"?

[-] -1 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

I never said he said that. YOU DID. Gandhi 's own words, in his autobiography,........"Among the many misdeeds of British Rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving the whole nation of arms as the blackest". If you don't/won't understand what he wrote it's because you have an agenda that will not permit it.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

He said "arms". He did not say "guns".

You can fight without violence.

You can't be "pro-gun" and "anti-violence" at the same time.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Because everyone knows that Indians at the time had no arms...they'd all been cut off by the British. And Gandhi looked upon their dismemberment as a horrific event and wanted them all fitted with prosthetics!

"You can fight without violence"

Technically, it's impossible to "fight" without being violent. You an resist. You can protest. You can do a lot of things, but the very definition of the word "fight" involves VIOLENCE-be it as aggressor or in defense.

[-] -2 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

Arms are weapons, large and small. Can't be pro gun and anti violence???? In his own words, Gandhi was.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Gandhi said "arms", not "guns".

He never explicitly, nor implicitly(at least in my opinion) endorsed 'guns'.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"We look forward to a time when we may aspire to the Viceregal office.To bring about such a state of things we should have the ability to defend ourselves, that is, the ability to bear arms and to use them. As long as we have to look to Englishmen for our defence, as long as we are not free from the fear of the military, so long we cannot be regarded as equal partners with Englishmen. It behoves us, therefore, to learn the use of arms and to acquire the ability to defend ourselves."

Pray tell....what kind of "arms" was the British Army "defending" them with? What kind of "arms" were addressed by the Indian Arms Act? What kind of "arms" is Gandhi talking about obtaining and using to defend themselves with? In your opinion....

[-] 2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Satyagraha. Insistence on truth.

Non violence is the weapon of the free. Violence is weapon of the cowardly.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Satyagraha. The truth is what you refuse to see.

From wikipedia-

"Gandhi's war recruitment campaign brought into question his consistency on nonviolence as his friend Charlie Andrews confirms, "Personally I have never been able to reconcile this with his own conduct in other respects, and it is one of the points where I have found myself in painful disagreement." Gandhi's private secretary also had acknowledged that "The question of the consistency between his creed of 'Ahimsa' (non-violence) and his recruiting campaign was raised not only then but has been discussed ever since."

India was NOT free. That's the point. And cowardice was something Gandhi saw as wrong. Gandhi said " There can be no friendship between the brave and the effeminate. We are regarded as a cowardly people. If we want to become free from that reproach, we should learn the use of arms"...."

Gandhi explained that it was impossible to live a life of Ahimsa unless one had personal courage, and had overcome BOTH cowardice and violence-both of which he viewed as evil vices. In order to live in TRUE Ahimsa-one had to know where to draw the line, and defending the innocent against violence wrought by others required courage. He saw very clearly the distinction between WANTING to kill or harm others (as an offensive act) and being forced to defend your loved ones and country (a defensive act).

He saw non-violence as superior yes, but when dealing with non-superior people, he saw self defense as superior to cowardice.

I can easily make the distinction between what Gandhi adhered to as his own personal behavior, and what he asked of the people of India who had NOT fully taken upon themselves his philosophy and have no problems with either one. Clearly you, and even his friend and others mentioned above, cannot.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

"If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest Gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance, but would have confidence that in the end the rest were bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy [...] the calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the God-fearing, death has no terror."

This was what Gandhi suggested to fight the Nazis with. Compassion through defiance. Not violence.

"…there should be unadulterated non-violent non-cooperation, and if the whole of India responded and unanimously offered it, I should show that, without shedding a single drop of blood, Japanese arms – or any combination of arms – can be sterilized. That involves the determination of India not to give quarter on any point whatsoever and to be ready to risk loss of several million lives. But I would consider that cost very cheap and victory won at that cost glorious. That India may not be ready to pay that price may be true. I hope it is not true, but some such price must be paid by any country that wants to retain its independence. After all, the sacrifice made by the Russians and the Chinese is enormous, and they are ready to risk all. The same could be said of the other countries also, whether aggressors or defenders. The cost is enormous. Therefore, in the non-violent technique I am asking India to risk no more than other countries are risking and which India would have to risk even if she offered armed resistance."

He then suggested non violence as a means of national defense.

Gandhi never endorsed violence or guns.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Being a bit more pertinent to today's issues/dilemmas, how would you rate this in the categories presented?

http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/03/south-carolina-turns-down-medicaid-expansion-that-would-benefit-236000-because-president-obama-is-black.html

Who should arm, or disarm, and how would it affect the problem?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

What on earth does something stupid said by one man, then spun on a blog by people who oppose him, have to do with Gandhi and arms?

What "categories presented" exactly?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

It's an entire political party, not just one guy.

With your superior understanding of Gandhi, you should be able to extrapolate an answer to the question.

Instead of avoiding it.

How would he handle forced pollution of a river?

http://www.propublica.org/article/after-a-powerful-lobbyist-intervenes-epa-reverses-stance-on-polluting-texas

How would he attack lying folks like the brothers Koch?

http://www.politicususa.com/kochs-corporate-arm-alec-destroy-healthcare-system.html

I'm just looking for something applicable to OUR situation.

He already did his thing in India and I'm proud of him for that, but we need to apply his lessons to today's issues.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I can read Gandhi without being...what was the word you used in the other thread...his acolyte. That's the blissful freedom of not being defined by or bound to any particular party, or creed or position that isn't TRUE FOR ME.

I would hope that Gandhi, as someone who proclaimed to adhere to "truth" would clearly see, and rise above, opinions and propaganda presented on BOTH sides and determine the "truth" for himself, before responding at all.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So you're just wasting time and space here then.

I get it. You really either have no opinion on topical issues, or you endorse them in their negative aspects.

See you around.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

No, you're wasting your time arguing with me unless you can provide FACTS or evidence for my consideration.

You don't get it. I form my opinions based on FACTS, not hearsay, not spin, not propaganda and YOU endorse all three in their negative aspects as long as they seem to support your point of view.

Whether you see me around or not, is up to you.

[-] -1 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

Your're trying so hard , stretching,........ You fail.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Saying that Gandhi was "pro-gun" is a stretch.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

It's more than a stretch, it's a low down slander.

This is called brain washing. It is one technique they use to confuse people's thinking. They know damn well that Ghandi was a lifelong advocate for non-violence, and so they try to blunt that message in people's minds by asserting the exact opposite of fact.

Brain washing - period.

[-] 2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

They confuse "arms" with "guns". They understand that it is possible to oppose evil with employing murder and violence.

I don't know if it is "brainwashing" per se or just complete ignorance.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Okay, you're right there. It might be ignorance. But it so absolutely misrepresents Ghandi, even the most peripheral understanding of Ghandi, that it is just mindblowing.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Leave it to those in the game of defamation to take every little thing out of context. It is what they do.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Yes, that has really become a tactic of the 1% owned media, and their hangers on, and it is something relatively new in America. It used to be that our political debate was over the facts, now they try to revise the facts - and the really sad thing is that a lot of people have such limited grasp on history that this tactic makes them real gains.

Its just plain sad. Education and self-education are the backbone of freedom.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - it is a must - to pay attention to the facts and not let someone tell you what to believe.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Tell me. When the average Joe thinks of Gandhi does he first identify Gandhi with guns and murder or compassion and non violence?

Equating Gandhi with guns and murder is a complete farce.

[-] 0 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

Gandhi wrote in his autobiography (page 446),.........."Among the many misdeeds of British Rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms is the blackest" What you can't stand is the a well known pacifist believed in self defense for the people of India that involved guns.

[-] -1 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

.If you read what he wrote in his autobiography,........... he was FOR his people being able to defend themselves with ARMS. Only purposeful idiot would continue to say Gandhi didn't mean guns.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Gandhi wrote a whole portion advising how to use non-violence as a means of national defense.

You have yet to point to where Gandhi explicitly said "guns are good". He simply never endorsed violence nor guns. He said "arms", not "guns".

[Removed]