Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: In complete solidarity with all Egyptian protestors even if they perpetrate violence? IF YOU ONLY READ ONE POST on forum today, read this one: Violence VERSUS Non-Violence in U.S. and EGYPT

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 16, 2011, 4:58 p.m. EST by therising (6643)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Like many people who are part of the Occupy movement, I feel great hope that the people of Egypt will rise up and win. I support them, wish them well, hope we can do whatever we can here to help them achieve their goal of real democracy. But I also don't want them to poison the results with means that undermine them. The means inform the ends.

Some here in the U.S. say they need to stick together with people who perpetrate violence. This is done with unity as the goal. But would you "stick together" with a fellow protestor who is running to jump off a cliff? Would you tue your rope to him and go over with him?

I will support the Egyptians to the end but if they perpetrate violence, I will condemn that. I may understand why they did it. I may in my gut still cheer for them to win. I may in my gut THINK it's justice if they hurt or kill military leaders or soldiers who oppress them. But I also look to history to see what happens when you use unjust means to achieve a just end. I will always support their cause no matter what but I will not succumb to a "by any means necessary mindset."

Gandhi forced the British out of India without raising a weapon. King helped win civil rights for millions with forceful non-violent direct action and civil disobedience. Why were King and Gandhi and their followers so successful? Many people think violence is strong and non-violence is weak. They think the only way to fight power is with violence. But it's just the opposite. The power structure KNOWS what to do with violence. They're praying for Occupy Wall Street violence in the boardrooms and country clubs. But nonviolent direct action befuddles them.

It's true that "POWER RESPONDS TO POWER." But some make the mistake of thinking the only kind of power is violent power. The power that comes from nonviolence has MORE FORCE. The means determine the ends. Some might say violence worked in Libya. Unfortunately, the end result will likely be less than "good".

I'm all about forceful nonviolent action and addressing the wrongs of the 1%. But there is something we need to remember that will increase the impact of our efforts exponentially. Beyond the power of TACTICS that build coalitions and bring real change for real people, there is a mindset. Both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi STRONGLY EMPHASIZED the importance of motivation. Both of these great leaders believed that love should be the prime motive, the engine that drives each action and the movement as a whole. They're talking about a universal love called agape and they both proved that its power to multiply the impact of forceful direct action is limitless.

We're not talking about weakness or meakness here. Gandhi and his supporters beat the British put of India where 1% were ruling 99%. We're talking about forceful non-violent direct action and intentionally creating such a high level of tension that the status quo can no longer be maintained.

King and his supporters said they LOVED the opposition enough to set them right. The saddest part about the concentration of wealth in this country is that it's most often just stored or used for junk. Granted, the junk of the 1% is bigger, fancier and more long lasting than ours, but the key is that the buzz they get from it quickly fades. So it becomes an addiction just like any other addiction. They're going after the dopamine buzz and it gets harder and harder to get it.

If they're lucky, they come to their wits end and discover family, art, life, love, whatever. But most don't, the poor saps. Their extravagant resources enslave them. It seems strange to say but we need compassion for the 1% too. The reason they're plundering the world is that they're lost.

We're not talking about being "soft" on the 1%. We still need to engage in forceful direct action to correct the incredible wrongs, bring those guilty of breaking the law to justice and fix the system so the 1% aren't the only ones who benefit and protect the environment. To do all this, we need to creat serious TENSION. King describes that good kind of tension here in his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail”:

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. . . The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.”

The following images say it all about nonviolence in my view. Need to watch all 3 min to see what happens at end. -- : http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-says-it-all-what-were-up-against-and-how-we-w/#comment-392602

136 Comments

136 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by thecommonman (63) 2 years ago

Amen

2 months of non-violent civil disobedience has already changed the consciousness and debate of the entire world.

3 months ago the understanding of the 99% was unheard of.

Today it is impossible to erase from the History Books.

Stick with what works. Reamin true to the principals of Gandhi and King!

WE ARE A NON-VIOLENT MOVEMENT

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Yes! Yes!

[-] 4 points by roscoesdad27 (106) from Aberdeen, MD 2 years ago

Who says MLK and Gandhi were succesful?.....spiritually yes, politically I can't tell by the current state of the people they supposedly liberated.

They gave MLK what he wanted then replaced the oppression he thought he beat with the vicious and rascist war on drugs terror scam that has been seperating generations just like slavery did.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=5b6kf5PIzX4

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64

currently the USA has 5% of the worlds population yet an astounding 25% of the worlds prison population with blacks being the majority despite being a minority within the country!!!....theres more black America.s in jail by far than any other group in the world and the vast majority are in for trumped up drug charges....yet there's no coke or heroin fields in the ghetto.

India has 600 million people in poverty....25% of the worlds total poverty population.

The French and American revolutions got it right.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I recognize the issues you raise but do you recognize the power of the methods King and Gandhi used? Seriously? And what if they had advocated violent methods instead? I need to know you're serious here because I don't want to waste my time. Do you acknowledge the power of nonviolence? Do you realized what would have happened if they'd become violent or advocated violence? Movement would have been SHUT DOWN ALMOST IMMEDIATELY.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Wait... Are you actually saying King and Gandhi weren't successful? Are you seriously making that statement and do you stand by it?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I don't know much about Gandhi, but I know that the elite in this country were supportive of King and ending segregation. That lead to his success more so than his non violence stance.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Gosh. That seems lie a huge misreading of King and civil rights movement. Your assertion flies in the face of writings of most major civil rights scholas amd historians. r. Do you have anything to substantiate what you're saying question

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I hate to use the Rockefellers as an example since most people associate them with conspiracy theories, but they were supportive of the civil rights movement, as was other prominent elite financial families.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

What does that have to do with anything?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

It has to do with everything that I said. The elites were supportive of King and the civil rights movement.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Why does that matter though? What's your point?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I said that King's non violence stance played less of a role than the fact that a good portion of the elites supported his movement.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

OK, now I understand. Well, just because something happened around the same time as something else doesn't mean one caused the other. How do you substantiate your rather unusual position?

[-] 0 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Was the federal government not instrumental with the civil rights movement?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Again - don't know what you're referring to and don't understand relevance.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

No problem.

[-] 0 points by roscoesdad27 (106) from Aberdeen, MD 2 years ago

So are u condemning the great and triumphant violent revolutions...MLK and Gandhi are my heroes and are ultimately correct but they was FARRR ahead of their time. They accomplished MUCH more spiritually than politically, much like Jesus.

right now the people MLK liberated make up Damn near 25% of the worlds prison population and Ghandis people make up 25% of the worlds impoverished people......you tell me if their non violence ways truely liberated their people, non spirituality talking.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

Jesus was executed for treason.....and so where his disciples.....that's what non-violence gets you, to the gallows faster. the IRA won in 1916...defeated the British Empire.

[-] -1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

You sound like a "throw the baby out with the bath water kind of person. Are you saying that Gandhi and King's tactics were not successful? Are you somehow saying that the entire course of human history has to be flawless following their efforts of we are to judge them as successful. Come on man. You must have taken a logic course in college and realize how absurd this line of argument you are putting forth is.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

You clearly haven't read King, Gandhi and Gene Sharp on the power of nonviolence. Elite protecting their power KNOW what to do with violence. They're praying for occupy movement to become vioment right now in the board rooms and country clubs. I've heard them. In serious.

They don't know what to do with nonviolence though. That befuddles them. Read King and Gandhi and Gene Sharp. Did you know that a number of top military people in U.S. believe Sharp's tactics work? Did you know that dictators fear him?

[-] 1 points by roscoesdad27 (106) from Aberdeen, MD 2 years ago

They do know what to do against no violence..beat us up and shoo us away and if that don't work, give us our way but have another plan in place to keep the oppression the same if not worse....give them civil rights but impose the war on drugs....can't put my finger on exactly what happened to India but....

There isn't a people more hopelessly enslaved than those who believe they are free......that how they beat non violence

[-] -1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

You don't get it. Well. All I can suggest is watch the power of what happens today.

[-] 0 points by roscoesdad27 (106) from Aberdeen, MD 2 years ago

I absolutely get it, MLK is one of my heroes....I admire him much more spiritually than politically and I'm sure he would rather that than the other way around.

[-] -1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

MLK can't possibly be one of your heroes if you think violence is a good option. It's a lousy option.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

There's no half way when it comes to nonviolence. It's not just at the beginning. It 's a commitment. It's forceful. And it works. There is no gray area my friend. Read King and Gandhi and Gene Sharp.

System is good in many ways. Our republic can work. It's been hijacked by plutocrats though (and their apologists). But stay tuned. All that's about to change.

Fasten your seatbelts.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

We never need to. Violence would be the weakest most reactionary path we could take. The 1% in the boardrooms are PRAYING for OWS to be violent. Drooling for it. I've heard them come out and say it. I know some of them. They know it would all be over if that happened because we'd lose support of middle America.

We can win this if we stay nonviolent and start being decisive. Need to focus attention of nation like a laser on specific things each week using civil disobedience and Gene Sharp tactics.

[-] 2 points by roscoesdad27 (106) from Aberdeen, MD 2 years ago

your right in theory and ultimately my brother but were stuck in a moment of time....even Jesus, the Prince of peace himself, MLK's 1 and only hero, whose words dwarves the combined effort of the 2 aforementioned saints, approves of us using force in this very situation.

This cleansing of the temple discloses the Master's attitude toward commercializing the practices of religion as well as his detestation of all forms of unfairness and profiteering at the expense of the poor and the unlearned. This episode also demonstrates that Jesus did not look with approval upon the refusal to employ force to protect the majority of any given human group against the unfair and enslaving practices of unjust minorities who may be able to entrench themselves behind political, financial, or ecclesiastical power. Shrewd, wicked, and designing men are not to be permitted to organize themselves for the exploitation and oppression of those who, because of their idealism, are not disposed to resort to force for self-protection or for the furtherance of their laudable life projects....Urantia book 173:1.11

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

Yeah keep, praying all the way to the hangman....

[-] 0 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Ever see the bumper sticker "Who would Jesus bomb?". I think it's relevant here. Jesus was nonviolent. Wouldn't bomb anyone. The ends don't justify the means. Are you somehow arguing that they do?????

[-] 2 points by roscoesdad27 (106) from Aberdeen, MD 2 years ago

He's saying that he DISproves OUR refusal to use force against shrewd, wicked and designing men exploiting our non violent idealism. They exploited MLK by giving him civil rights but initiateing the viciously rascist war on drug terror scam that quietly thwarted all his POLITICAL works thou his spiritual lessons transcend. Bottom line I smell a fight coming and I'd rather take care of it than leave it up to my son, God willing.

do you have kids?, if u don't mind me asking.

[-] 0 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

The most forceful action we can possibly take is described by Gene Sharp. There's a reason dictators fear him. Everyone's kids will thank them if they rise up no using Gene Sharp tactics.

[-] 1 points by roscoesdad27 (106) from Aberdeen, MD 2 years ago

anyways, I'm on my to occupy Baltimore....with a chip on my shoulder.

[-] 1 points by roscoesdad27 (106) from Aberdeen, MD 2 years ago

"The most deadly form of violence is poverty".....Gandhi

currently India has an astounding 25% of the worlds critically impoverished people.....even Ghandi himself would agree with me, in horror, that his methods didn't liberate his people like the propaganda says it did.....spiritually yes but politically you barely have an argument.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

Jesus was executed............for treason.

[-] 4 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Right ON. I fully believe that MLKing lead his movement to a point where their Rights and Responsiblities simply balanced and everyone agreed that they were correct in what they were doing. They did not win IN THE MIDST OF WAR, they won (we ALL won) in the MIDST OF PEACE. Common sense and civility prevaled.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Right on. Common sense and civility prevailed. That's powerful.

[-] 3 points by SirPoeticJustice (628) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I Think What We Need Most Right Now Is To GRIEVE. We Need Our Humanity And Grieving Not Only For Our Stolen Freedom, But For Our Stolen Dignity, Is What Will Allow Space To Open For Our True Genius To Dream Of New Possibilities

We Need To Realize We Are Slaves. They Have Poisoned Our Food, Water, Air, Minds, And Stolen Our True Wealth Which Is Our Unity. We Fight Among Ourselves While They Strategize About How To Reduce Population. Grief is the only way to find Unity Again.

Grieve WIth Me My Friends, No matter if your Black White Red Brown RICH or POOR.

The Masters of this planet see you as an object. A consumer.

This Does Not Mean We Surrender. It Means We Grieve For Those that have been lost, and grieve for our own losses. We Grieve for our pain is deep and transcends socioeconomic boundaries.

This is the pain of humanity come home to roost.

Think of how much they have stolen from us.

Think of what we once were. We cannot even remember the ways of our great grandmothers and great grandfathers, regardless of which continent they came from.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Great comment. Beautifully said.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

The people are rising around the world.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Are we willing to rule out violence?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

If Egypt goes violent, can we support nonviolence here and support violent protestors over their at the same time? If so, how?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

If you were on the phone with an Egyptian protestor who told you he was about to go out and perpetrate violence against the regime, what would you say to him??????!?!???????????????????????????????????????

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Can we maintain solidarity with Egyot but condemn violence by either side?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

The momentum is with us. Let's rise nonviolently. Let's renew our commitment to nonviolence each and every day. Forceful nonviolent direct action is the ENGINE of this movement.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Isn't it possible to support Egypt but also condemn violence by either side since violent means yield poor results?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Nonviolence is key.

[-] 1 points by Chris3141 (34) 2 years ago

Thanks for this post. I support the broader goals of OWS, but I am afraid that it is making some really bad tactical decisions. It is already declining in popularity. http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-becoming-increasingly-unpopular-heres-how-t/

[-] 1 points by sowhatareyougoingtodoaboutit (95) 2 years ago

You're claiming the "1%" is greedy and unethical because they don't "love" and just care about money.

If you're bashing those who care about money, then why are the "99%" part of this movement? They shouldn't care about money. That would make them just as cruel as the "1%"

Quit bashing the "1%" and think about how OWS got started. It's because the "99%" want more money.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Wow. Slept in through the logic classes in college, didn't you? You're comment is so full of logical fallacies that I can hardly count them.

No one said anything about hating money. That's a red herring argument.

You completely understand what I am saying about the 1%. They're LOST and that is what causes them to be greedy and heartless at times. They're not happy having over abundance. They're trapped by all that stuff. They define themselves by it.

The form of the word love I'm referred to us agape, universal love. We're talking abou love of humanity, knowing that at the core of every being, however hidden, is a core of goodness. Once you see that, it becomes less about fighting and hating (which only hurts the hater really) and more about loving the lost so they find themselves and stop clumsily hurting the other 99% of the population.

That's not to say there aren't lost among the 99% too who find their identity in money and things or the hope of obtaining them. I'm critiquing that mindset no matter what the oerson's net worth is. It's clear though that the financial winners in this current economy have a pretty big devotion to things and money for its own sake though. Otherwise they wouldn't trade their values and sell their kids, grandkids, country and their fellow citizens down the river just to get from $4.8 billion net worth to $5.2 billion in net worth.

Obviously I'm leaving out the harm they cause to the environment and other countries and the citizens of the world. It's not just the CONSUMER that buys the pair of sketchers sneakers made by 6 year olds in China at a factory that pollutes the air and water. It's also the producer who makes the decision, raises the capital, arranges the marketing etc.

Everyone loves to blame the consumer, whether it's people who buy Nike or homebuyers who borrowed money from Bush's buddy Countrywide's Anthony Mozillo. Yes, consumers should educate themselves and make good choices. Completely agree and I'm not letting consumers off the hook.

But let's not forget the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of marketing that goes on to perpetuate these brands and this business model. Absent a regulatory superwoman like Elizabeth Warren pushing for consistent disclosure,, it's not easy for consumer to see through the smokescreen. That doesn't let the consumer off the hook but it does put the PRODUCER on the hook. They've been given a pass for too long.

The head of Interface Carpet, world's largest supplier of carpet, has woken up to this and has been telling fellow top CEO's, they're going to be putting people like us in jail soon (people who make money by polluting environment and ruining economy).

He's right.

[-] 1 points by sowhatareyougoingtodoaboutit (95) 2 years ago

Slept through the grammar classes, didn't you? "You're" is a conjunction, meaning "you are". So your third sentence said something along the lines of "You are comment is so full of logical fallacies..."

And I am 15 years old, so I haven't been to college. Sorry about the logical mixup. Let me clarify.

You claim the "1%" cares only for money, not love.

You claim they need to get their priorities straight.

You claim the "99%" needs to act with love and compassion.

But what you're not claiming is the effectiveness and legitimacy of the movement of the "99%".

Gandhi and Jesus were protesting with love for issues concerning human rights such as religious freedom, the right to protest peacefully, basic human needs, and the right to rule themselves.

The "99%" are protesting ideals eerily similar to communism.

Instead of advocating the complete reformation of Wall Street, why doesn't OWS compromise and keep the institutions and rules in place that allow us the freedoms we have that people in other countries don't?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

The momentum is with us. We just new to remain nonviolent and ACTIVE. Forceful nonviolent direct action. Massive amounts of people focusing energy in one spot at one moment in a tactical way.

[-] 1 points by jacqpec (13) 2 years ago

So right. We also need to make our mission clear. As King did we need to state our demands and yes we need a spokes person or people.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

I agree.

Still its pretty arrogant for them to think that a handful of policemen would be able to stop thousands of protesters through violence.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I'm all about forceful nonviolent action and addressing the wrongs of the 1%. But there is something we need to remember that will increase the impact of our efforts exponentially. Beyond the power of TACTICS that build coalitions and bring real change for real people, there is something else. There is a mindset. And both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi STRONGLY emphasized that achieving the MINDSET was essential prior to engaging in tactics. The mindset they described was about motivation. Both of these great leaders believed that love should be the prime motive, the engine that drives each action and the movement as a whole. They're talking about a universal love called agape and they both proved that its power to multiply the impact of forceful direct action is limitless.

We're not talking about weakness or meakness here. Gandhi and his supporters beat the British put of India where 1% were ruling 99%. King and his supporters won civil rights and a better life for millions. Both engaged in forceful non-violent direct action and intentionally created such a high level of tension that the status quo could no longer be maintained.

King and his supporters said they LOVED the opposition enough to set them right. The saddest part about the concentration of wealth in this country is that it's most often just stored or used for junk. Granted, the junk of the 1% is bigger, fancier and more long lasting than ours, but the key is that the buzz they get from it quickly fades. So it becomes an addiction just like any other addiction. They're going after the dopamine buzz and it gets harder and harder to get it.

If they're lucky, they come to their wits end and discover family, art, life, love, whatever. But most don't, the poor saps. Their extravagant resources enslave them. It seems strange to say but we need compassion for the 1% too. We really do. For our own good and theirs. The reason they're plundering the world is that they're lost.

There's a move in the martial art Aikido where, when your opponent aggresses towards you, you take a slight step to the side. Then, instead of aggressing towards him, you move with him and "help him to the ground where he'll be safer." It's remarkable because you use his energy. You harness it. And you do it with the true motivation of helping him. I agree with others who say that all power flows from that mindset and approach.

We're not talking about being "soft" on the 1%. We still need to engage in forceful direct action to correct the incredible wrongs, bring those guilty of breaking the law to justice and fix the system so the 1% aren't the only ones who benefit. We also need to protect the environment. To do all this, we need to creat serious TENSION. King describes that good kind of tension here in his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail”:

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. . . The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.”.

.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

HERE'S WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST AND HOW WE CAN WIN. Gotta watch all the way to end http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-says-it-all-what-were-up-against-and-how-we-w/

[-] 1 points by misunderstood101 (68) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Just like the pen is mightier then the sword....if you say the right words you can help or kill a persons hope and dreams.....nonviolence is very effective only if you know how to wheel power like an art form.... No fight fire with fire how about throw some water on the problem?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Not sure what you are getting at.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2036) 2 years ago

MLK I love him, but civil rights in America didn't change until Malcolm X got on the scene... Malcom X said non-violence is great when it works. Ghandi himself wrote if non-violence doesn't work, then use violence. Weather it be by nonviolence or violence - that is up to the 1%.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

All wrong. You're distorting the whole thing. You're either a paid troll or sorely misinformed.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2036) 2 years ago

Sorry you think I'm a troll; I'm not, and certainly not being paid by anybody. I'm just trying to point out an inconvenient truth. I've been working against this 1% for over a decade now, and I say just holding up signs and chanting won't do a thing. The 1% can care less what the 99% has to say. Unless you wield some real power (hopefully which can be nonviolent), nothing is going to happen, but as soon as you do the trouble will start. (Don't forget what is and has been going on in the Middle-East. The 1% kills people wholesale.) But don't take my word for it. Do spend some time and study history as well the writings of Ghandi carefully. I don't wish for violence any more than any other person. I personally have a lot to loose. But not to prepare for the possibility and stand up to it would be foolish. We have already seen a bit. Unfortunately the outbreak of violence is not up to us.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I will assume from tour comment that you are sincere and that younare a supporter of the movement. I'm going to say something here that I've said before on this forum but I spent a lot of time on it to answer this exact challenge so I'd like to review it here and get your thoughts:

I'm all about forceful nonviolent action and addressing the wrongs of the 1%. But there is something we need to remember that will increase the impact of our efforts exponentially. Beyond the power of TACTICS that build coalitions and bring real change for real people, there is something else. There is a mindset. And both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi STRONGLY emphasized that achieving the MINDSET was essential prior to engaging in tactics. The mindset they described was about motivation. Both of these great leaders believed that love should be the prime motive, the engine that drives each action and the movement as a whole. They're talking about a universal love called agape and they both proved that its power to multiply the impact of forceful direct action is limitless.

We're not talking about weakness or meakness here. Gandhi and his supporters beat the British put of India where 1% were ruling 99%. King and his supporters won civil rights and a better life for millions. Both engaged in forceful non-violent direct action and intentionally created such a high level of tension that the status quo could no longer be maintained.

King and his supporters said they LOVED the opposition enough to set them right. The saddest part about the concentration of wealth in this country is that it's most often just stored or used for junk. Granted, the junk of the 1% is bigger, fancier and more long lasting than ours, but the key is that the buzz they get from it quickly fades. So it becomes an addiction just like any other addiction. They're going after the dopamine buzz and it gets harder and harder to get it.

If they're lucky, they come to their wits end and discover family, art, life, love, whatever. But most don't, the poor saps. Their extravagant resources enslave them. It seems strange to say but we need compassion for the 1% too. We really do. For our own good and theirs. The reason they're plundering the world is that they're lost.

There's a move in the martial art Aikido where, when your opponent aggresses towards you, you take a slight step to the side. Then, instead of aggressing towards him, you move with him and "help him to the ground where he'll be safer." It's remarkable because you use his energy. You harness it. And you do it with the true motivation of helping him. I agree with others who say that all power flows from that mindset and approach.

We're not talking about being "soft" on the 1%. We still need to engage in forceful direct action to correct the incredible wrongs, bring those guilty of breaking the law to justice and fix the system so the 1% aren't the only ones who benefit. We also need to protect the environment. To do all this, we need to creat serious TENSION. King describes that good kind of tension here in his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail”:

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. . . The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.”.

I believe it's important at a juncture like this to read books By Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi and Gene Sharp to your nearest Occupy site today. They speak to the mindset and the tactics and stress that the mindset is as important as the tactics.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2036) 2 years ago

Ok, I think we are sort of on the same page. I can agree with everything you said. Keep in mind though the 1% we are dealing with are a real sick bunch of pups. Nonviolent direct action will more likely invite bullets rather than negotiation. We can still love 'em like some people love snakes. But consider wearing a kevlar vest.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Completely agree. We're totally on the same page. Strategically though, we win if we remain nonviolent. It will befuddle them. The problem you raise is regarding what I refer to as the "birthing process" During that period, the 1% are losing their identity. All the norms that used to define and elevate them are slipping away. The least mature and intelligent among them will react severely to this, like a cornered beast. I've seen it. I've been there. They are dangerous at this point in the birthing process. Vicious. The kicker is that we intentionally created this tension. We had to.

But they can make through and out the other side and rediscover life. They can, as James Baldiwin out it, step out of the lie and the trap of their history and be, JUST BE. It can and will happen and it is a beautiful thing to behold.

Cheers. Here's Tina positive birthing process for most of the 1%.

[-] 1 points by GuglielmoTell (0) 2 years ago

What do you, people, expect to win, if you have no platform? You are against the Capitalist Party, good, but where is the People’s Party? Where is the political movement that would change the system? What is the program? What is the course of action? I’m writing from OUTSIDE the US and reading your American stuff many of us see how big is your ignorance about the way the world works. It’s not about changing a country, it’s about CHANGING THE WORLD. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. gave ideas and set examples, but the final task is still there. Allende in Chile set an example of how to bring the Big Politics close to the people and he also paid with his life for it when the bastard rich impoverishing the people didn’t give a … about starting the Big Violence so to show the people whom they’re … with. Chavez in Venezuela entered the politics so to defend the people. And if you think that Qaddhafi whose system in Libya was giving free health care to immigrant workers was a tyrant, and the Al-Qaida dictatorship imposed by the guys whom you protest against was a “victory of democracy”, then what, are you pleased with Obama and his “change”? You go to elections, you go to Civil War against the guys who want you enslaved or dead (Lenin was criticized for making such a call), or you die. Exhaust the peaceful means, all right, but if you all die poisoned by the pepper gas, and today’s Big Guys go back to their champaigne, then you’ll go down in History as just another joke.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

Do you think non-violence would have work against the Nazis?.....the answer is no.............Well we are up against fascists pigs now who love it when they do not have to fear getting hurt.............

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

You don't get it. They know what to do with violence. The people in the board rooms and country clubs are PRAYING for violence. It would instantly turn majority of America against the movement. The power of OWS is that it has surprisingly large support which is getting larger. This scares the crap out of the 1%. Our nonviolent marches befuddle them. Seeing people tha look like their sons and daughters in the streets befuddles them. They look ridiculous arresting peaceful protestors and more and more of America says " Wait a second ..,." and gravitates toward the movement. That support MEANS something. A lot. And those who advocate violence would squander it all.

If one reads King and Gandhi, you'll see the power of nonviolence. Without this wisdom and understanding, people who tolerate / advocate violence will be playing right into the hands of the 1%.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

Therising...............I didn't say they should be accredited with OWS..........Just that the Police need a little fear in their lives.........................Then they would think twice about brutalizing peaceful demonstrators at the behest of their masters.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Chuck - I hear you man. I really do. But this is exactly the instinct you, me and others must get over if we're going to win this. You said if they had some fear they'd think twice about brutalizing protestors. It is EXACTLY this fear you speak of that CAUSES THEM to brutalize protestors and you're saying you want more of it.

I get how you feel. If that had been my friend on the ground in this video (must see this http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-says-it-all-what-were-up-against-and-how-we-w/ ) then it would have been damn hard for me not to take a swing at a policeman. But you know what. That would have been my lizard brain taking over my rational self which is counterproductive and against my own interests and the interests of the group.

Chuck - splash some cold water on your face, joh around the block and then look at this video a second time. Look at the power here. It came from nonviolence chuck. It came from nonviolence. And now this video is the #1 trending item on google. Gotta watch all the way through to the end. Amazing. Incredible. Instructive. http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-says-it-all-what-were-up-against-and-how-we-w/

[-] 1 points by TheTideIsTurning (8) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

Yes. Yes. So true!

Some say that the violence caused worldwide by this oppressive, ruthless system, militarily, economically, and environmentally, is way harsher violence than any activists could do, and that is true.

But the point remains that, strategically speaking, violence (which in the eyes of most of the world, most of the 99% we need on our side, includes property destruction), is not productive to building this movement and ultimately making the deeper systemic changes we need. It alienates those who could be supporters, and it brings more violence / repression, and while we have the moral high ground on this, those in power have much bigger power when it comes to weapons.

Good means, good ends. Yes.

Thank you for posting this!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. Please spread the word to remind people of the power of nonviolence. Cheers!

[-] 1 points by flang23 (47) 2 years ago

Thank you for posting this. If only the police are violent, everyone sees it. If only the police are violent, protesters cannot be blamed.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Absolutely agree. I like the way you put it. Please spread the word that nonviolence is the way.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Nonviolence is a tactic and a very important one, but ultimately only a tactic. Very, very few people are absolute pacifists. If we are truely a movement of the 99% we must learn to embrace those among us who do not necessarily subscribe to an ethic of nonviolence, at least not as an absolutist stance.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Wrong. Complete dedication to nonviolence is the only way we can win. We must remain completely nonviolent. If someone promotes violence, they are a part of a different movement. Not the OWS movement.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Complete dedication to nonviolence? I happen to be a Quaker but that notion sounds like more of a religious statement than a political statement. As a Quaker I also realize that try as I might most people are not absolute pacifists (including, for that matter, most Quakers I have encountered).

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Well, if movement resorts to violence, it will be over.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I agree that if the movement, as a movement at this point, resorts to violence it will quickly become marginalized. Though I can imagine circumstnces in which that might not be the case. Should the Lybians have remained nonviolent? The Syrians? I'm not suggesting that we are there yet or anywhere near there, or that we will ever get to a situation like that. On the other hand I am also not prepared to categorically and absolutely rule it out as an impossibility. But those are mere theoretical considerations.

More practically, it is virutally impossible for any social movement to be so universally disciplined that it will be absolutely nonviolent. There are always going to be some elements that don't agree. How do you deal with them? Any effort to seriously discipline them would necessarily mean resorting to violence, which would be a violation of an absolute rejection of violence. Not only that, it would suggest that violence against our supporters is ok, but not against our adversaries, not exatly a consistent position. Alternatively we might fink on violent types in our movement and turn them over to the cops, who are what after all--that institution in society which has a legal monopoly on violence. Again that would be inconsistent.

And this is a real and immediate problem. There are in fact violent types in our midst. That's just a fact that we can't avoid. So we have to think about how to deal with them. I think that OWS has made great strides in mediation, but as a technique it is still in its infancy and we have a lot to learn in terms of how to make it work. But this is a real problem and we can't make it go away just by stating that we are nonviolent or insisting that we must be.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

That is a thoughtful response. I appreciate you taking the time to articulate your position or what you see as the possibilities. You state that you are not prepared to categorically and absolutely rule out the use of violence . I AM prepared to categorically and absolutely rule out the use of violence. That is the key difference between your position and my position on this topic.

You bring up philosophical and practical reasons why violence might be necessary. I find it very odd that you feel that it is possible that the movement would need to use violence against people within the movement who do not You said that any effort to seriously discipline members of the movement who got out of line would necessarily mean resorting to violence. Why would it necessarily mean that? I'm asking a very serious question here. Why on earth would you think that the only way to deal with trouble within the movement is with violence?

The character of the means inform the character of the ends. We must be mindful of that.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Unfortunately I don't think our skills at mediation have evolved sufficiently to completely vitiate the possibility of violence and it's not at all clear as to how to appropriately handle such a situation. So far, when I've seen or heard of a situation "getting out of hand" the ultimate response has been to call the cops, which, it strikes me, is a capitulation from an absolute position on nonviolence. I suspect one way of handling this might be to have an overwhelming presence of nonviolent activiasts who could literally surround the miscreant with love, but the unfortunate fact is, we are not there yet.

Also, I do find your absolute commitment to pacifism rather odd. I'm a Quaker and a member of the War Resisters League, but I suspect that the number of absolute pacifists in the US is probably in the low hundreds. In fact I'm constantly surprized at the limitations on absolute pacifism that most Quakers I've met have.

So, unless you know something that I don't, I think you'd have to admit that your absolutist position on violence is rare indeed. I'm not here suggesting that OWS should advocate or engage in violence and I absolutely agree that for the most part at this point should it fall into such practices it would very quickly become isolated from the broad mass of the American public, but I don't see that as being an absolute position for all times and at all places under any conditions. In that sense, absolute pacifism is just another extremist position. After all many OWS supporters are military veterans, hardly a nonviolent position, unless you think using violence against nonAmericans is OK and the only exception you would grant.

I very much agree with the idea that the means must be consistent with the ends, but I'm also very uncomfortable with absolutist positions of any kind.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Again, thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response. Need more of that type of communication on this forum.

You said: " I think you'd have to admit that your absolutist position on violence is rare indeed. I'm not here suggesting that OWS should advocate or engage in violence and I absolutely agree that for the most part at this point should it fall into such practices it would very quickly become isolated from the broad mass of the American public, but I don't see that as being an absolute position for all times and at all places under any conditions. In that sense, absolute pacifism is just another extremist position. After all many OWS supporters are military veterans, hardly a nonviolent position, unless you think using violence against nonAmericans is OK and the only exception you would grant."

Dude - I just don't get it. I don't have exceptions to this. I do not think U.S. should have gone into Iraq and wasted a trillion dollars or more and thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. I do not think our military should be working in collusion with corporations (defense contractors) to create weapons that we don't need. And I definitely do not think that violence is the best answer in any situation.

You also said I was one of only a few hundred people in the country who maintained thorough commitment to nonviolence. I would venture a guess to say that MILLIONS of people have the same commitment I do.

Have you ever read Gene Sharp's tactical manuals for revolution? You realize that US military generals praise Sharp as having effective and innovative tactics. Dictators fear him. He is steadfastly nonviolent.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Gene Sharp is a Quaker and a lot of his stuff he basically cribbed from centuries of Quaker practice. On the question of absolute pacifism in the absence of some objective statistical data, I suppose we have to agree to disagree. I've been around the pacifist movement most of my adult life (not the peace movement, the pacifist movement). I've been to many Quaker meetings. Even within pacifist meetings which are themselves quite tiny, I have found a commitment to absolute pacifism a rare occurance indeed. Now, I'll admit that this is a completely subjective experience and I've really been like Diogenes in these instances, really pushing people to the wall an asking them to confront the most extreme examples possible and asking how they would handle it. But that said, even in the instance of less extreme examples, I've really found very, very few people, even in settings that were specifically pacifist, where most people would agree that they would be nonviolent under all and every imaginable circumstance. But again that's just my experience. I'd also suggest that if millions of people really held the position you say you have the US military would be completely nonfunctional as would, for that matter virtually all the police forces in the nation all of which are based not on nonviolence, but on having a legal monopoly on violence.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Now you have me REALLY paying attention -- You said:

" I'd also suggest that if millions of people really held the position you say you have the US military would be completely nonfunctional as would, for that matter virtually all the police forces in the nation all of which are based not on nonviolence, but on having a legal monopoly on violence."

So police and military would be rendered impotent if we adopted nonviolent stance. You just hot the nail on the head and that's exactly what movement is doing I think.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

No, what I said is that the police and the military would be rendered impotent if they adopted a nonviolent stance. We already have one though it is not as absolutist as is your personal position (no movement position could be given that movements are not organizations and can't exercise that kind of discipline over its adherents). I just saw the videos of the police attack on students at UC Davis, which, at least so far as the video showed, looked entirely unprovoked, which I think is not entirely the case in New York. That is, for the most part I do think that the New York movement is nonviolent but that is not the same thing as being nonprovoking. I think Ghandi once quipped that really absolute nonviolence was the equivalent of death or something to that effect.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I don't think you understand. Nonviolent tactics are very forceful, provocative, powerful, challenging. I think you have this picture of people sitting under a tree singing songs. We're talking about a lot more than that.

Did I misunderstand you? Please clarify.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

No matter how nonviolent protesters are being, the social role of the military and the police is to act as that body which has a legal monopoly on violence. It follow that an absolutely nonviolent society, by definition could have neither a military or a police force or for that matter even a state as ultimately all the state is is the administrator of the legal monopoly on violence. Without it no state would be necessary, which is why if it is logically thought through, all absolute pacifists are also anarchists. The Quakers in Pennsyvania faced this in the early 18th century when the dominant forces in the legislature felt it necessary to go to war with the native Americans. The Quakers in the legislature objected and basically dropped out of electoral politics altogether for more than 100 years.

Ghandi always talked about nonviolent resistance and for him the whole phrase was essential because, as he put in, nonviolence without resistance was essentially death.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I am talking about active nonviolent resistance. I think we're confusing terms here. Anyway, watch this. http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-says-it-all-what-were-up-against-and-how-we-w/ This is active, nonviolent and powerful. Imagine if it was done another way with violence. What would the result be then? I can tell you that the result with nonviolence is that hundreds of thousands of new people just became interested in and / or supportive of OWS. That would be OPOSITE with violence by protesters. It's all up to us. Do we want to succumb to their methods using our reptilian brain and play right into their hands playing their game that they can easily win or do we want to be smart and tactical and win?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Some say they need to stuck together with people who perpetrate violence. This is done with unity as the goal. But would you "stick together" with a fellow protestor who is running to jump off a cliff? Would you tue your rope to him and go over with him?

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

As I write this I'm paying attention to what is happening at Tahrir Square. The Egypians may resort to violence in their struggle with the Army. They've certainly advised us to do as much in their communications with us. But in terms of our solidarity with them, I'm personally not going to pass judgement on their choice of tactics. They're there and I'm here. They are in a much better position to decide what they need to do there.

But most importantly I am certainly not going to withdraw solidarity from the whether or not I happen to agree with their tactics. We need to stick together. We are all in this together. Like the statement at the top of this page says, this is about world revolution.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Let's unite and rise

[-] 1 points by randart (498) 2 years ago

Seems like Bastille Day worked for the French. When power ignores logical suggestions then sometimes they get spanked.

I am a supporter of non-violent movements. I support fairness in life. I also know that these people, the 1%, will never change. They are poor of soul and have a hole they can never fill.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I completely disagree. We must love the 1%. They plunder because they are lost. We must love them so much to set them right to borrow a phrase from King. There's a move in Aikido where you help opponent to ground " where they'll be safer. That love is the motivation. And the motivation determines the end result.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Let's rise with force nonviolently.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

For every protestor arrested, 2 will replace them.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Viva la revolution

[-] 1 points by OneOfYou (5) 2 years ago

Well.. Bloody Sunday was a major turning point in the effort to gain public support for the Civil Rights Movement, the clearest demonstration up to that time of the dramatic potential of King's nonviolence strategy. King, however, was not present. King met with officials in the Johnson administration on March 5 in order to request an injunction against any prosecution of the demonstrators. He did not attend the march due to church duties, but he later wrote, "If I had any idea that the state troopers would use the kind of brutality they did, I would have felt compelled to give up my church duties altogether to lead the line."[9]:276–9 Footage of police brutality against the protesters was broadcast extensively and aroused national public outrage.

[-] 1 points by Occupytheimf (134) 2 years ago

I believe peaceful progressive movements are the way to achieving a better world. I believe ows movement just only now emerging from infancy shall be achieving more than any other has combined. I intend to support ows more not less. Philly xchief 1st nonsyrian defection not last. I salute nyc occupiers. Youre inspiring for 7 billion folks less a few misers. Suggestions for action: supreme court challenge to overturn all bylaws prohibiting limiting public assemblies of protests against a corrupt political system which denies rather than provides explicit constitutional rights.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Awesome. Rock n roll!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Rise and shine....humanity is rising...

[-] 1 points by DudleyE (94) 2 years ago

You guys have a looooong way to go before proving to anyone, anywhere that you should be mentioned in the same sentence as Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. By attempting to correlate this insanity with the Civil Rights marches led by Dr King, you are disgracing his memory. He was a man of honor and would have had nothing to do with this madness!

[-] 1 points by OneOfYou (5) 2 years ago

Hey Dudley, look up:> Bloody Sunday was a major turning point in the effort to gain public support for the Civil Rights Movement, the clearest demonstration up to that time of the dramatic potential of King's nonviolence strategy. King, however, was not present. King met with officials in the Johnson administration on March 5 in order to request an injunction against any prosecution of the demonstrators. He did not attend the march due to church duties, but he later wrote, "If I had any idea that the state troopers would use the kind of brutality they did, I would have felt compelled to give up my church duties altogether to lead the line."[9]:276–9 Footage of police brutality against the protesters was broadcast extensively and aroused national public outrage.

[-] 1 points by DudleyE (94) 2 years ago

Yes, police brutality against peaceful protesters. Trying to incite the cops to kick your ass because you're obnoxious and arrogant, that wasn't in the Civil Rights playbook!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Great point

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

King marched for workers rights, peace, civil right and much more. He used nonviolent tactics. I'm confident after studying civil rights movement for over a decade that King would support this and give lots of advice about remaining nonviolent and loving the 1%.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

You are flat wrong.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

What's happening in NYC right now is incredible. What's happened in the last 8 weeks is incredible. The biggest elevation of conscious since the civil rights movement. Beautiful.

And now we must be extra vigilant to remain nonviolent.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Please don't at this point equate your movement in any way with that of the MLK rights movement. You only have the right to do that when you have finished. A lot could happen between now and the finish.
Please DO NOT even go there. If you fail in any way due to any reason, you simply have belittled one of the greatest movements that this country has experienced and taken to a successful conclusion for society as a whole.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

You're wrong. And nothing could defile the legacy of the civil rights movement except relegating it to the dustbin of museums and history. It was meant from day 1 to be a struggle that continued. If you think otherwise you haven't read King or studied the civil rights movement.

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Prove yourself worthy, then I will consider changing my mind. Right now, NO. I struggle every day - no comparison.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

"Prove yourself worthy.". Ha! The only proving we have to do is to ourselves friend.

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Thank you. I entered this discussion forum with a pretty open mind. You just slammed that in my face. I'll take my interest somewhere where it is not all about "ME".. Don't break your arm patting yourself of the back. And you have the gall to call someone else GREEDY - eat it.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Power responds to power. And non-violence is more powerful than violence.

[-] 1 points by thethirdeye (-10) 2 years ago

Violence worked in Libya.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Ahh. You're forgetting the end result part. The means determine the ends.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Ya think? You only got rid of the one man who ruled from one of fourteen people groups. And you, like Bush before you, declare "mission accompolished".

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

The people are rising.

[-] 1 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Gandhi and MLK, Jr. succeeded. They changed the world.

But when The King Center and Southern Christian Leadership Conference offered to provide their system to OWS NYC, similar to efforts with Occupy Atlanta, they were ignored.

Saying "non-violence" 1,000 times doesn't get the job done.

Giving the agenda of the "General Assembly" over to a half-dozen individuals doesn't get much of anything done.


Same for the faces of Zuccotti Park.

Erek Tinker, Thorin Peace (Keeper ?) Caristo, Stephen of the $27-million computer company, Marc Apolloa -- who are they ?

Anybody seen drivers licenses ?

What was going on at Zuccotti ?

Who has hands on the substantial streams of donations moving forward ?

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

May I suggest that violence has won MANY more times then non violence.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

What does THIS tell you? Need to watch the whom thing to see what happens. Then tell me what would have happened with your method. http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-says-it-all-what-were-up-against-and-how-we-w/

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

My method? What method?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

You said: "May I suggest that violence has won MANY more times then non violence." You are clearly suggesting violence is a viable method. I should not have referred to it as " your" method though since obviously you didn't invest it an I'm sure you're not a violent person. I'm sorry for the misstatement.

My question still stands though. Look what happened here -- gotta watch whole video: http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-says-it-all-what-were-up-against-and-how-we-w/

My question is "how would it have gone if students had used violence? And what would reaction of American public have been?

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

I'ms not suggesting anything. I'm simply stating that the old wives tale of violence never solving anything is bullshit.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Well. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I don't agree. Violence is what fuvks everyithung up in the first place.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

In the end? Did it really win in the end? Come on, you have to be joking. The means inform the ends.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Okay. Violence helped/destroyed:

Napoleon Hitler Mussolini Caligula The Confederacy Japan in WWII Etc.....

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that OWS movement should use violence for this reason ( or at least consider it)? Isn't the situation here completely different? Wouldn't violence be playing right into hands of the. 1%'s hands?

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

My point is to stop this cliche about violence never solving anything. Time for this stupid shit to stop. I'm not saying that it is the solution to the present problems. Ghandi? King?

A shitload of people around here need to read some fucking history.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

You don't appear to be in a mindset to have a real dialogue about this. It seems to me that you've already made up your mind that violence is a viable option for OWS and I mm not likely to change that mindset . Also, I'm confused about why you put question marks after Gandhi and King's names. Gandhi beat the Brotish out of India wearing a bed sheet and no weapons. King and his supporters won civil rights for millions without raising a weapon. These were active militant guys. King eleven described the civil rights movement as militant.

This video shot recently of a protest explains everything in 3 minute and shows tactics live in prsctice in am engsgement with police. Put yourself there at this event. gotta watch the whole thing start to finish.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

Excellent post.

'What if a war was declared and nobody came?'

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Love that. Also John and Yoko Lennon's "War is Over (if you want it to be)

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

Glad somebody here recognizes John Lennon's wisdom.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Need to spread that wisdom

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 2 years ago

You need very brave people to follow Ghandi's advice. Here was his suggestions to the Jews in a 1940 address:

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

[-] -1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Today is a great day. Let's be vigilant about nonviolence. If provocateurs try to incite violence, sit down immediately, everyone, and point at the provocateur and say "This person is not part of our group. We are non-violent. That way the image of that incident on nightly news and CNN is of lone provocateur looking silly.

[-] -1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

So important on a day like today where so many are in the streets for good reason...