Forum Post: Ghandi sed it
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 3:33 a.m. EST by alouis
(1511)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. Mahatma Gandhi
"The state calls its own violence law, and that of the individual, crime."
— Max Stirner
Hey! I said that!
Err ... No .. and that's why there are 'Stirnerites' & NOT alouishites .
I also invented the phrase "eurotrash" but I never got it registered.
Yeah, well, my father invented the Cobb Salad and the phrase "The Mother of All...[blank]", s'long as we're measuring micturition distances here.
lol
"An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so." - Gandhi
yep
Ghandi was against the british occupation of India.
Who owns the centralbanks of US and England?
Very good question.
"If we cannot by reason, by influence, by example, by strenuous effort, and by personal sacrifice, mend the bad places of civilization, we certainly cannot do it by force."
"Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us."
Without either a corroborative link or context, The 99% can deduce from that quote therefore that IF violence (and hatred) are removed from the Human Heart then True Non-Violence ('Ahimsa' : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa ) is Realised and seen to be 'Hyper-Potent' !!
fiat lux et omm shaanthi ~*~
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Mahatma_Gandhi
http://massline.org/Philosophy/ScottH/Gandhi.htm
A Virtual Debate With Gandhi About Non-Violence
[Sources: GONV means Gandhi on Non-Violence: A Selection from the Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, edited by Thomas Merton, (NY: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1965). The references in parentheses below are to the two-volume edition of Gandhi's Non-Violence in Peace and War, published by Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1948, which Merton used as his source.]
Principles Non-violence implies as complete self-purification as is humanly possible. Man for man the strength of non-violence is in exact proportion to the ability, not the will, of the non-violent person to inflict violence. The power at the disposal of a non-violent person is always greater than he would have if he were violent. There is no such thing as defeat in non-violence. —Gandhi, GONV, p. 24. (I-111.)
The first of these principles is based on one of those repulsive religious ideas, that people are "sinful" or "dirty" and need "self-purification".
The second principle seems to make a certain amount of sense; but it should be rephrased as something like "the potential impact of the purposeful resort to non-violence is proportional to the ability of the non-violent person to use violence instead". Though Gandhi would hardly welcome this consequence, this implies that the non-violent responses of a person capable of violence, and prepared to resort to violence if necessary, carry considerably more impact than those incapable and unprepared for violence.
The third and fourth principles are ridiculous. They are views which can only be accepted on faith, a faith which flies in the face of ordinary common sense and the conclusive lessons of history. One can imagine trying to make some sense out of these principles, but it would be an absurdly strained exercise. To argue that non-violent activity has a certain cumulative moral effect, for example, has some limited plausibility. But it by no means implies that there is no such thing as defeat for non-violence. If you are engaged in a non-violent campaign against a war, for example, then you are defeated as long as the war continues. To argue otherwise is to forget your purpose, and to live in a dream world.
[Removed]