Forum Post: Why the non-violence: a better solution
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 23, 2011, 10:10 p.m. EST by RedSkiesAwaitUs
(57)
from Quebec, QC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
From the beginning of this movement, the mantra ''peaceful protests, are best'' have been drilled repeatedly. why? Why does everyone insists on keeping the movement peaceful above all. To be this adamant about anything is a recepie for disaster. I look back into history and I see nothing that tells me non violent civil disobedience is the answer. Rosa park? MLK?Ghandi?
Ghandi only ''won'' because the British empire was on the verge of collapse, quite literally breathing it's last breaths. It also helped that he had pretty much all of India on his side. Unfortunately, the American empire is still going strong, and we can't even get half the population to agree on evolution. The red vs blue mentality, the propaganda, the ignorance and blind patriotism makes that approach moot. As with MLK and Rosa parks, they were fighting public perception, not greed and corruption.
I'm tired of seeing our basic rights, such as the first amendment trampled because it's inconvenient for others. I'm tired of seeing OWS slowly dwindle into obscurity, I'm tired of watching the police brutalize protestors without ANY accountability or justification.
Personally, I think the best course of action for OWS would be to have 90% of so of the group protest specific and clear cut goals. The decentralized thing isn't working out. These protestors need to publicly explain and ''out'' people who are there for the wrong reason (I.e-the promoters of Marxism, the modern day hippies, the conspiracy theorists, the homeless) This would greatly improve perception amongst the undecided. To gain better perception amognst the republicans/conservatives, we need to protest the white house and congress at the same time as wall street.
the other 10% who wouldn't ''officially'' be part of the group, and infact denounced by the group, would create fear amongst the corrupt politicians, the cops and business executives. These people would be responsible for setting fire to police cars, throwing Molotov cocktails at the cops, harassing anyone who orders the peaceful protestors out, both verbally and physically. Essentially, make anyone against the movement fearful for their lives. Make the lives of anyone obstructing the protests incredibly difficult, causing a great reluctance to do anything, in fear of backlash.
I feel as though this kind of double header is the best route to succeeding. Create fear and extreme resistance amongst those who can't be convinced, whilst pandering to the majority that can be convinced. Though I'm sure many of you will disagree. Nevertheless, I'm open to listening to your ideas, and I hope to be convinced that non-violent is better.. Having little faith in humanity sucks sometimes :/
As far as Gandhi goes, it wasn't even just that the British Empire was on its deathbed. There were tons of attacks against British forces, even high-profile assassinations in London (eg Michael O'Dwyer). Rebel governments like the Azad Hind had formed, raised their own armies, and declared war on the British, carrying out attacks against British forces (in a few instances, in collaboration with the Japanese).
Just before the British decided to hand over power to Gandhi - whose nonviolent movement had pretty much fizzled out by this time - the British Indian Army started to mutiny and attack regular British forces in India. The real clincher was when the Royal Indian Navy revolted (the Bombay Mutiny), took control of the fleet, and started to shell British coastal installations. And it was the Bombay Mutiny, not Gandhi, that created the real threat to continued rule: a partnership between Muslims, Hindus, and Marxists (symbolized by the triple flag of the mutineers).
Gandhi wasn't a part of any of this, but the British chose him to hand power over to. Because he was the only figure of any signifigance that wasn't shooting at them ... had they handed power over to the RIN instead, it is likely that the horrific butchery which followed over the issue of partition would have never happened. But they were hardly going to hand power to an avowedly Marxist/Islamic/Hindu coalition that was firing on them! Gandhi was the only logical choice.
That being said. Do you really want to start firebombing police stations and whatnot? I don't think we're anywhere even close to having to do that sort of thing. And "outing people who are there for the wrong reasons" such as vaguely-defined "hippies" and whatnot, is not inclusive, it's exclusive and I don't think OWS can succeed as an exclusive group.
Thanks for typing out what I didn't feel like typing. A very thorough and informative post I might add.
Not yet, but given the current trend, I'm predicting that there will be a point, a fork in the road where we have to choose failure or force. I hope I'm wrong though, I hope my entire view on humanity is wrong, otherwise ill have to conclude the world is a depressing place, and I've been procrastinating that ''enlightenment'' since I was 15.
It's the minority of fringes that seem to make the majority of people against OWS. If they can't use the homeless, or the weirdos (I seen a clown taunting police) as a scapegoat, then they'll have no choice but to address the real issues. It's all about getting as many people as possible to support the movement (without derailing it of-course).
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. JFK
The freedom revolution on the right is going strong and it is peaceful. We actually started for the same reason you guys on the left have. We saw Bush was a total globalist, military industrial complex owned toad. I think you guys are seeing the same thing in Obama if you are honest. We realized that R's and D's are basically the same on the important issues. You guys have Nader, we have Paul. Let's unite where we can.
I'm with you! We can accomplish much more united than we can divided. Plus it'll scare the shit outta the people pullin' the strings of these puppets. Great quote too, Dog.
Cheers:)
Violence is the path of the fearful, the ignorant, the hateful, and the cowardly. Personally, I don't want to find myself behaving like the NYPD. When that happens, the movement is basically over. This isn't a full on revolution (at least not in a martial sense) and the history of political movements that resorted to using violence against the government is a bleak one. Violence is only met with violence and is counter-productive to change.
Although we are Occupiers, we are not an army. We are not rebels. We are not insurgents. There are few if any Occupiers who have any experience with armed resistance and I doubt any who want to. If anyone wants to be violent, there is nothing stopping them. Go be violent. But if anyone wants to lead others to violence, then OWS isn't the movement for them.
I'd rather see a violent revolution that succeeds, than watch this peaceful protest collapse into obscurity, leaving America in the same position as before, but lowering the public confidence in protest. Ther's always a ''down'' period before new ideas can be gestated. Can America keep going on that long, probably not.
Of course I totally advocate non-violence when it comes to simply changing public opinion. However, with OWS, that is not the case.
There's not going to be a new American Revolution. Not in this generation, anyway. And violent Revolutions only succeed on paper. In the end, you have a lot of dead people on both sides, and whoever is left over forgets the original grievances and starts something completely new.
I have to agree with that. Violent uprisings are terrible. Sometimes a necessity, but nevertheless terrible.
However the idea that the winning side forgets the issue is rather unfounded and unsupported by fact. If the OWS generation succeeds, the people will be in power, there will be no-one to tyranny (tyrannize?)
American Revolution, pure Democracy replaced with watered-down version that supports land owner's rights over the rights of the common man. Slavery left in place. The French Revolution, traded one autocratic government for another and lead Europe into 25 years of war. The Russian and Chinese Revolutions (do I even have to to there?)
The easiest way to convinced of it, this is to imagine that you would be killed and your family will remain without you. One day, you will convinced of it. It will, when you die. Or it will when your heart stops beating, and you will experience clinical death. I know it - from August 1999.
"These protestors need to publicly explain and ''out'' people who are there for the wrong reason (I.e-the promoters of Marxism, the modern day hippies, the conspiracy theorists, the homeless) This would greatly improve perception amongst the undecided."
HOLY CRAP!!
What a disgusting thing to say.
Yeah, violence (or fear of) is certainly faster and more effective. But where do we find our benevolent uber-thug to lead in that controlled-and -trustworthy-but-still-really-scary kinda way? Our kindler and gentler thug, where he at??? Still, you have a point and may be onto something. take a boo and pass it along: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amNO_QJzaQ8
When the belief that the end will justify the means, you will see your Black Hand.
Understandable at times - for all experience it. Count me out if it becomes violent. Here to support peaceful rational revolution done in love and respect for all others.
Tell it to the Egypians, the Syrians, the Lybians, the Greeks and the Italians.
Have you procured adequate weaponry to battle the NYPD or Xe Services (formerly Blackwater)? Did you read on Fox News about the "weapons cache" that was seized by the NYPD during their Zuccotti Park raid? The "cache" consisted of a kitchen knife, mace, and a few blunt objects. We couldn't even take on a small, rural police force (they've been militarized, furnished with sophisticated weapons). I laugh at anyone who proposes violence as a form of protest. I am peaceful and that is not why -- I laugh because we could never win any battle that involves violent confrontation. Our opponents own violence. The powerless could maybe take out a loan, borrow for awhile ... only guarantee being that we will pay them back, plus interest.
you are a fucking idiot, whos clearly not understanding the facts of the situation as well described by game theory and any meaningful simulation.
THIS is how a real revolution happens. Your idea is just the path to concentration camps and martial law.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Paradigm_Shift
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Non_Violence_Theory,_Practice,_Ethics,_and_Protest_Communication
Well, you said what I was thinking, but the invective "fucking idiot" stands in the way of intelligent audiences you are trying to reach with your wikipost and use of pronoun "you" doesn't place it directly on redskiesawaitus where it belongs....for those reading through without clicking All the links. I like your wikis-that's dead on. Now you're certainly intelligent enough to debate redskiesawaitus better-and you obviously have the ability to follow the subject matter here http://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-read-about-the-constitution-and-corpor/ where your concept (paradigm shift) applies to the thread there. THE object of all occupation.
If the women of this country hadn't all cut off their right arms and attached chainsaws to them and slaughterd the oppressors, (You rememeber, right before we left earth one and erased the memory of that happening from all the really stupid people), women woudld still not be able to vote. Thank got for their violent uprising.
If I could let anyone re-write history, I'd definitely pick you, awesome story.
However, as I mentioned, they were fighting public perception. You don't change public perception through violence, it just doesn’t work. If the battle was against greed, they would be fighting an upward battle.If anything, womens right benefited those in power. If I was a businessman, I'd deffiniatley hire a girl for 5x cheaper than her male counterpart. If I was a politician, I'd support womens rights, knowing doing so could potentially earn me 100% more votes.
I'm being 100% serious. Could we have a serious discussion, instead of just dismissing ideas you dislike as some sort of strawman fallacy. I have yet to have a fact thrown about that disproves my theory, Of course I'm not touting it as a fact, but rather my opinion, based of history and my understanding of human nature.
You can tell this is grey/black propaganda because if he were serious, he wouldn't be posting this on this forum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda
You might want to reassess your analysis.
Because it doesn't jive with your preconceived notion that OWS protestors are secretly plotting a Machiavellian scheme to exploit fear, terrorism and violence?
It's not a preconceived notion.
So you have prior evidence to support this conspiracy theory?
No?
[Removed]
If you want to discuss matters seriously, I'm always up for a healthy debate. However, it's an utter waste of time for both of us if your only interest is making assumptions and using logical fallacies. Asking if I have evidence for my conspiracy theory makes no sense. Conspiracy theories are not based on evidence, they are based on hearsay. They are worthless. I don't dabble in them because they are evil, and damage the mind. Your questions are only meant as insults. That's lame.
Until you learn how to debate properly, you can search for the truth on your own. I'm not going to bother answering your insults any longer. It's sad, but this forum is plagued with that useless type of junior high-school like discourse.
Here is a good question you can ask yourself to start off:
Why would a non-violent protest like Occupy deliberately associate itself from its beginnings until now with the violent 1969 "Days of Rage" protest in Chicago?
This protest in Chicago used the motto "Bring the War Home" and started in this illustrious fashion:
There was more violence in the following days.
How can Occupy benefit from that association? Do you have strong arguments and not only insults and logical fallacies to explain this? If so, please state them. We can talk about associations with other violent protests once this one is thoroughly analyzed and explained.
I don't know how to debate properly because I place the burden of proof on the person making the assertion. It is improper to challenge people making outrageous claims to support them with evidence.
Which informal fallacy was that again?
Also it's unreasonable to refer to the idea that "OWS protestors are secretly plotting a Machiavellian scheme to exploit fear, terrorism and violence" as a conspiracy theory.
Gotcha.
For someone who claims to be so concerned with correctly structured arguments, you sure do commit a lot of ad hominem attacks...
I love that the best support you can offer is that one of our days of action has the same name as a protest 40 years ago that involved property destruction and vandalism.
Clearly, this demonstrates that OWS is bent on covert terrorist plots.
I simply cannot refute such devastating logic.
Read the thread again. You never asked me in a polite way to provide my proof. You only spit insults at me. The informal fallacy was that you asked for evidence to for a conspiracy theory. That's an oxymoron. Conspiracy theories don't use evidence, they are based on hearsay. Read my posts.
I asked a serious question in my last post and you can't be bothered to answer it. That saddens me because I like the base idea of Occupy and I think it could be a wonderful movement, but it's not working because Occupy protesters refuse to hear and look at criticism. It will be the downfall of the movement. It's very important to ask why Occupy would associate itself with a violent protest of the past. It's crucial actually. It might be that someone overlooked this. If that's the case, then it should be brought up in the GA and rectified. You don't seem to care about Occupy's image one bit. Sad.
Again, read my posts. I said I would bring more support after you discussed this issue. However, it seems you have balked. Fine. It's your movement, not mine.
"A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."
I asked for evidence to support your
theorythat OWS protestors areconspiringto engage in terrorism. The term "conspiracy theory" itself says nothing about what sort of evidence (or lack thereof) is used to support it. Some conspiracy theories have been proven true--- for example: COINTELPRO, Operation Mongoose, Bush's use of fabricated evidence of yellow cake uranium to deceive Americans into believing Saddam had nuclear weapons etc.The word "propaganda" really only means "a work promoting or arguing for a particular point of view."
These terms only gained their negative connotation because most propaganda and conspiracy theories are silly, far fetched and lacking credible evidence. Kinda like yours.
<<<I asked a serious question in my last post and you can't be bothered to answer it.>>>
Ok i'll bite. The "day of rage" title wasn't taken from the Chicago protests, it was borrowed from the recent "day of rage" demonstrations in Palestine, against the illegal siege of Gaza. But again, lets suppose that it was in fact named for the Chicago protests. What exactly does this indicate? The Tea Party protests draw their name from a violent mob in Boston that committed acts of mass vandalism and property destruction (and for legitimate reasons IMO.)
Is this evidence that Tea Party protestors are bent on terrorism?
Some Tea Party protestors have carried AR-15 assault rifles to protests and use fiery imagery and rhetoric (even carrying a sign with the "blood of patriots and tyrants" quote outside a building Obama was speaking at)
A much better case could be made to show that Tea Party folks are plotting violence. But the fact of the matter is that such a case is baseless and silly. The slightly overweight, balding dudes in colonial era militia uniforms aren't dangerous terrorists--- they are misinformed fox news viewers.
<<<That saddens me because I like the base idea of Occupy and I think it could be a wonderful movement, but it's not working because Occupy protesters refuse to hear and look at criticism.>>>
Yea I've been hearing this all along. On the very first day I was told that we needed to pick established leaders and make XYZ demands/actions. We were informed that we would be "gone and forgotten in a week."
At every stage---from being a few hundred people in one city, to the massive global occupy protests on oct 15, until last Thursday's national day of action where in new york alone tens of thousands of occupy protestors took to the streets---at each and every step along the way, people have kept insisting that we were on the verge of collapse and had to take XYZ strategy or imminently fall apart and fail.
You'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical.
I think we have had such huge success and growth precisely
becausewe haven't listened to hecklers and funneled our movement into meaningless electoral politics or other bullshit.The widely used definition of conspiracy theory is a theory that's backed up by pseudo-science. When you simply say conspiracy theory this is what it means. If you want to talk about the theoretical definition that is no longer used in common parlance, you have to specify this.
Propaganda has no negative implication in my mind. It's simply used to fortify a message or an idea. Occupy uses propaganda. All movements do. It's a powerful tool.
I never espoused this theory and I have no idea why you think I did. I don't believe most protesters on the ground have a plan to become violent, and I have never said they are violent at the moment.
My argument is that Occupy is using a certain type of imagery and news reports to prepare protesters for violence. This was a tactic used during the Arab Spring protests. And, in many others protests around the world. Many theorists have studied these propaganda tactics, and Occupy is using a textbook strategy to that end.
Your counter-arguments against Occupy using the "Days of Rage" epithet is based on a logical fallacies:
Whether or not Occupy purposely made a reference to the "Days of Rage" protests from Chicago 1969 doesn't matter. The reference is there. The exact epithet was used for that protest and for Occupy. Ignorance is not a defense. Occupy has linked itself to a violent protest. Now that I have brought this to your attention, you should ask a GA to cut all ties to "Days of Rage".
If Occupy purposefully based its "Days for Rage" epithet on the protests of Palestine and not the Chicago protests, the problem remains the same. They are linking themselves to a violent protest. The problem simply got compounded because we now have two links to two violent protests.
The word "Rage" itself should not be used by a movement claiming to be non-violent even if it doesn't relate to any other protest. Rage is an aggressive word that symbolizes violence. An enraged dog is not friendly.
Saying it's OK for Occupy to forge links with violent protests because the Tea Party had links to violence is a logical fallacy. First, two wrongs don't make a right. Second, the Tea Party never claimed non-violence as being one of its core tenants. If Occupy claims non-violence as a core tenant, then it should not associate itself with violent protests, violent imagery, or violent rhetoric. Period. It's not because another movement does something wrong that Occupy can or should make the same mistake.
You've made matters worst. We now have two violent protests to which Occupy is associated. And, it's still not clear from your counter-arguments how a protest who claims non-violence as one of their prime objectives can benefit from associating itself with violent protests, and how it can defend itself from this.
If Occupy is sincere in its quest to remain non-violent, then I believe it would be advantageous for the movement to cut all ties to protests which have used violence. Many of the Arab Spring protests also used violence. It should also refrain from using violent imagery and violent rhetoric like "Days of Rage"
This has nothing to do with my arguments and is absolutely off-topic. It's nothing more than a red herring. I think the structure of anarchy that Occupy has adopted is wise, and I never argued it should use a system with elected leaders. I have no idea why you bring that up.
I await your rebuttal, and I'm hoping for a sincere debate on your part. If you could refrain from using words like "bullshit" that would be appreciated. Let's try to remain on topic and be polite. Good discussions are hard to come by on this forum.
[Removed]
One of the few responses from the "solution" side-which is a positive thing, whether or not it is the right course (and I don't think it is). Here's the premeses I see that are flawed. One-The British Empire is in full swing with America as it's little proxy. Few are unaware of the proper interpretation of history (the long view) that the American Civil War was the last battle of the Revolutionary war (with England). The Bank of England financed it, ensuring D.C. Became it's corporate stronghold, capped the rebels and the American Republic, shoving the organic constitution aside (you know we have TWO CONSTITUTIONS?) and has been sucking it dry ever since via the Federal Reserve (also established by The Bank of England).
So this idea - that we need some violence to get the message across (what's the message?) really does nothing more than open the door to martial law-further loss f liberty.
Restoring the republic means learning how to assert your rights under the organic constitution, and how to know what jurisdiction you are in. The legal framework that exists is the route to solving the puzzle...but can't be undertaken unless you learn how this gordian knot was tied in the first place. Excellent discussion on this point here And resources http://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-read-about-the-constitution-and-corpor/#comment-413890
I think martial law would do wonders for this movement! It would pretty much guarantee most of America would be pissed off at those in power, and would leave them hungry for change. It's the easiest way to make unite both republicans and democrats in the struggle for fair reform.
No thanks, but how would you feel about war with Canada?
Like, Quebec going to war with the rest o Canada, or America going to war with Canada? If America even tried something, the UN would drop their shit and most of the world would fight against you.
But yeah, I for one welcome martial law. It will be the catalyst for the revolution.
So there you have it folks. We are debating a UN One World One Currency goon who is in thrall to the Rothchild banking cartel-a college kid whose Marxist education is fully subsidized by the Queens "scholarship" initiatives -a puppet of said bank cartel. There ARE no states, a war with Canada would achieve absolutely nothing-I merely wanted to draw you out-thanks for making it easy. "Martial law is good"-what a lark! You are the problem. Thankfully, the average ows INDIVIDUAL has not been brainwashed to the extent you imagine. All I can do is forgive your ignorance and your intentional disruption-hope you turn your energies to a positive endeavor. Happy Thanksgiving-from an American Canadian.
You're paranoia and ignorance make me smile...
Fine way to lose a debate. Bravo.
You're scary.
"RedSkiesAwaitUs" IS indeed scary and - if he is not a paid "AGENT PROVOCATEUR" - a complete idiot.
I'm analytical.. I've looked at the past 10,000 years of human history and I've discovered that the most ground is gained when there's a mix between peaceful opposition, and full out violence. I guess my theories are based on human nature which are very much scary.
So, uh, thanks?
As-tu des connections avec le FLQ? Sois honnête.
Iv'e been predicting Occupy protesters would soon be churning out this type of violent rhetoric, but I'm surprised it came out so soon. You're in Québec, so that wouldn't affect you much. I guess you must be an old anarchist wanting to relieve the FLQ days (front de libératiion du Québec)
I wouldn't be surprised if you have ties with the moderators of this forum and the organizers of Occupy. I knew you guys wanted violence, but I was sure you were going to wait after Christmas before making your move.
[Removed]
Of course you are free to believe whatever best satisfies your ideological bias...
Je ne suis pas Québécois, mais plus taud Américain. J'ai déménager parceque l’économie American était dans la falaise.
And no, I'm not associated with OWS in any way. I am however deeply facinated by the protests. I'm currently working towards by Ba in sociology and I'm using the protests as an area of study, when I go for my phd.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Fair enough. Enjoy Québec city, it's a beautiful little place. Your French is not bad. Only a few mistakes here and there. Good luck with your thesis, and don't give up. Many do.
Thanks, Quebec has been very accommodating thus far.