Were Gandhi, King and Mandela Wrong?


The non-violent means we have so far used to save our Constitution, stop the imposition of a martial law state, and stop World War III seem to have failed*. The neocons are gearing up for an attack on Iran, we're not getting out of Iraq any time soon, people are getting beat up and arrested for exercising their Constitutional rights, the continuity of government plans and Reichstag laws have all been finalized, and the madmen could carry out another false flag attack at any time.

Indeed, some have argued that non-violence by itself and without the threat of violence has never worked, and claimed that those who think that the non-violent resistance of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. or Nelson Mandela was the decisive factor in their victories are ignorant. Others argue that this is misreading history.

I agree with those that argue:

Violence will achieve nothing, but will provide them with an excuse to crack down. The violent overthrow of government by the masses simply isn't possible in this day and age, nor is it desirable. Our strength lies in our solidarity and our ability to bring the machine to a screeching halt. When we resort to violence, we have compromised our strength and made ourselves weak.

Millions of people understand that 9/11 was an inside job (or at least that the government allowed it to happen), that the U.S. is fast becoming a police state, that the ruling elite of both the Republican and the Democratic parties care only for their corporate masters and not we the people, that the boys want war against alot of oil-rich countries. If large numbers boycotted the corrupt system, stopped providing goods and services for that system, stopped providing the resources that make that system possible, and poured out onto the streets in protest, the system's attack on Constitutional freedoms, its ability to carry out false flag attacks, and its drive for perennial world war would grind to a halt pretty quickly, without a single shot having to be fired.

It would be immoral to resort to violence when we haven't even taken those peaceful actions.

Indeed, we have to find a way to make non-violent resistance work. Because I believe that any acts of violence will be used as an excuse to crush all dissent: "The government could only go so far in acting against explicitly nonviolent organizations. That's why governments repeatedly pay spies to join nonviolent movements and try to turn them violent. The government often needs movements to be violent in order to be able to repress them effectively."

And while I am personally wholly against violent revolution for ethical reasons, I also believe -- on a practical level -- that without an organized resistance, a violent revolution would be doomed to failure anyway. And given the spying on emails, phone calls, etc., how can anyone organize such a resistance?

And even if those who claim that non-violent resistance has never worked are right (and I hope they are wrong), that doesn't mean that we can't use our creativity now to come up with a new solution. I passionately believe in the power of human creativity, in the ability to look at the impossible and to find a solution, in the human capacity to run into an impenetrable brick wall and to find an opening. Remember, Alexander Graham Bell and other great inventors fail hundreds of times before they find a way to do it.

Even if its never been done before, we can find a way to do it now. Even if traditional forms of non-violent resistance don't work, we can find new ways to exert leverage against the fascists. As just one example, some have argued that fascists in a technological society are highly vulnerable to non-violent acts. And the video-to-internet guys -- who didn't exist in Gandhi, MLK or Mandela's day -- who film the high and mighty being confronted by questions that the corporate media won't ask are creating an entirely new way to confront the powerful and level the playing field.

For both moral and practical reasons, I am 100% against violence and 100% for finding new ways to make non-violent resistance effective. It is the only way we'll win . . . and the only way that we will avoid becoming that which we are fighting against in the process.

Were Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mandela wrong? I hope not. But even if they were, let's make them right by taking their positive message of non-violent resistance and applying the real-world smarts, guts and creativity to actually make it work today.

I am not talking about giving up our right to self-defense under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. That is an entirely different issue, and I believe in the right to bear arms (and -- of course -- people who buy guns should learn how to handle them safely).

I am NOT calling for the overthrow of the government or breaking any laws. In fact, I am calling for the reinstatement of our government. I am calling for an end to lawless dictatorship and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, I am calling for its enforcement, and for a return to the rule of law. Do you disagree with these goals? If so, then YOU are anti-American.

* On the other hand, one wise 9/11 truth activist says it would be better to say "can appear to be failing, unless one takes a broad perspective view". He argues: "It is true that the neocons are continuing forge ahead with their insane plans. But that is not because we have failed, it is because we aren't succeeding enough YET to turn the tide. It could take years more to turn this tide in an overt way with tangible results reversing insane policies, but the tide IS turning. Slowly. Gradually. But certainly. Unstoppably. Yes, it is. We need to learn to trust that we will turn it in time to be effective in the long run, even as we fail in the short run."

That is the question

I'm sort of ambivalent about the subject but agree with you for the most part. The sticky question ethically is what constitutes self defense. It could be argued, for instance, that people are subjected to massive institutional violence on a daily basis, and that this occurs as a direct result of policy makers in the highest seats of power. Consequently, engaging in a violent act against (for instance) a member of the Bush administration could be considered justifiable.

However, in the end I have to side with the advocates of non-violence. Regardless of whether you consider it ethical, it doesn't seem to work very well. The many documented attempts by FBI provocateurs to instigate violence suggests that the powers-that-be are well aware of this. From Hoover's point of view, Martin Luther King was a more dangerous man than Malcolm X.

Ward Churchill's "Pacifism as Pathology" argues that non-violence is ineffective.

Here's a rebuttal called "The Sword that Heals", after King's turn of phrase:


Although most people tend to regard violence as a "last resort", here's an interesting example of NON-violence as a last resort:

"A classic case was in El Salvador in 1944, when an armed uprising failed to overthrow dictator Hernandez Martinez. The government was strong enough to beat back armed struggle. So the students initiated a nonviolent insurrection, making a big point of the nonviolent part because of the defeat using violence. They threw Martinez out nonviolently -- "people power" succeeded where violence had failed. The students in neighboring Guatemala were so impressed that they initiated a nonviolent insurrection against the "iron dictator of the Caribbean" -- Jorge Ubico -- and Ubico was thrown out, too."

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Great Post.

I totally agree George Washington. I admit though after seeing these fools tazer Andy Meyer I was tempted to say violence is the only answer. It is hard. I wished that room of people stood up and charged those cops, but while that could have been a short term victory, it most likely would have been a long term failure.

Let's face it. They have the power and weapons and money to destroy us. 9/11 is a great example and they are infiltrating many protests and peace movement groups. I don't think we can ever defeat them violently. At best, with enough percentage of the population agreeing to it, it would be a mutual destruction.

Our best motivation in my opinion is education and non-violent direct action (in the spirit of Gandhi, King, etc.) This is what scares them. This is what they try to stop. This threatens them. And this is what is working.

Of course we might have to take some sacrifices in our attempt to get this world back in a more peaceful order in this manner. 9/11 was one of these sacrifices. The first responders are being sacrificed. And of course the Iraqis and Afghanis are being slaughtered.

Regardless. If we can't educate and impassion the critical mass and create this tipping point. We are doomed.

I accept we are in a mess. a disaster. but the way out that I see is non-violent in nature for the most part.

Even as I type though I wonder... We have to confront these bastards with the utmost of fury. I don't know what it is going to take. I just hope we succeed. Peace.

WeAreChange is beautiful. Publicity is essential.

Take this for instance.

When the Jews were being put on trains and marched to the concentration camps, I always said... man they should have fought back. Stood up. Resisted. Died if necessary fighting. Violently.

Look. The non-violent measures werent taken or weren't successful leading up to that point. The society wasn't educated or impassioned to stop the mass murder.

That to me is why it is so important to succeed now with the non-violent actions. Saying when or identifying the point when the Jews or us or any oppressed people should stand up and fight back is something I guess that could be debated.

Because when those Jews were abandoned by their society, I feel they had every right to stand up en masse and march the fuck out of those camps and kill any guard who resisted their efforts at freedom. It's tough man.

At this point. I hope we can succeed with non violence, education, publicity, etc. I'm lost.

First I have to say

First I have to say nonviolence is the best way to go so do not misconstrue this. I completely disagree that "they" have all the power to destroy. Let's not forget that "they" have had their asses handed to them in Iraq, Lebanon (by proxy via Israel who we fund and supply), vietnam, and miscellaneous insurgencies around the globe. The local populations in most cases HAVE sustained massive casualties; however, they come out on top and the US has had or will have to admit defeat and leave. It would be no different here. We out number them and that has them scared. They would rather rule us through intimidation than outright martial law because there are too many gun owning Americans that won't put up with that business.

Nonviolence is great and it should be pursued. Keep in mind however, that the entire time we have been going about this nonviolent means to change our government that they have been slowly cranking things up on us. It's the frog in the slowly heating pot issue. At some point they will cross the line, whether it's martial law or some other incident which will result in a massive public backlash. But they are trying to avoid this at all costs because it's easier to incrementally enslave the population and remove the populations' options for fighting back (violent or nonviolent).

Really what would be great is to find a nonviolent way to force their hand which would shift this tension system into a new direction. The incremental attacks on us are what I worry about the most. Some marches on state capitals and long term sit ins would be ideal, especially before winter sets in.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Gov't is scared of violence?

If the authorities that be want to avoid violent contact with their populations, then why the hell do they use the tactic of inciting violence during the peaceful protests like in the example we saw in Canada recently.


If the crowd gave into violence we would have never known the true provocateurs or instigaters, but thanks to the calm and forceful leaders there, we know see that these men are fakes, police officers, and treasonous at worst.

This is how its done in my opinion. Violence was unnecessary and would have been counterproductive to say the least.

As far as Gandhi, King etc go

their non violent protest etc did very little but bring needed attention to the problem and that was even when protest actually meant something and weren't completely ignored by the MSM like today.
What changed things were when each and every "peaceful" protest leader was assassinated and the ensuing VIOLENT RIOTS afterwards THAT is when things changed.

There is only ONE possibility of We the People taking this country back and stopping the fascism and that is MASSIVE and I mean in the 10s of Millions, like 50-60++Million damn mad and not going to take any more citizens get in the streets and STAY THERE, this would not have to lead to violence, simply because of the sheer numbers involved violence could be avoided because they would see they are out manned, out gunned.
Sadly I don't see that happening for the same reason we saw in the taser video, people just sat there and watched yet again while someone is wrongfully arrested and tasered.
If we wont even get off our collective damn asses when it is happening 20' from you then forget about getting 10s of millions to stand up and absolutely demand change, most people in this country are too ignorant for one thing, second they have been conditioned to "obey any and all authority" no matter what. We have been conditioned in this country to be "Mitlaufers" in the same manner as the German people were in the 30s.
The same outcome is what we are headed to and personally I don't see anything that's going to stop it.

Peaceful protest of a few thousand here and there for a day or two is utterly worthless today and that is clearly the best we can manage because of the complicity of the MSM and the sheer unbridled ignorance of a very large percentage of the American public.

Basically we are screwed and we may as well face it, people in this country will never fight back until its far too late. I am embarrassed to be called American.

Your diagnosis.. Your cure?

That doesn't sound too optimistic. Don't tell me you've given up. And second. Your comments just reinforce the idea of non-violent action. Because as you say.. our society isn't going to go into the streets, armed, mad as hell, and in the 10 millions or whatever.

My diagnosis?

We are screwed. My cure? I don't see one anytime soon.
What "should" happen but sadly will not is millions upon millions of Americans taking to the streets and job one is to put Faux News out of business.
Then point to all the other news corps and say you are next unless you start telling the truth.

Once the MSM actually tells the truth the rest will fall into place quickly, however I don't see the American public giving a damn in the massive numbers it would require to work.

Election Fraud & 9/11 truth are the key issues that could save this country, those are the ONLY 2 subjects the MSM flatly refuse to discuss.

So make those 2 subjects as popular with the MSM as Paris Hilton & Britney Spears and our problems are over simple as that.

Take heart, Nunyabiz--there

Take heart, Nunyabiz--there were demonstrations at the university where it happened and the national consensus is mostly one of revulsion at the tasing.

As for violence, that would be one of the quickest ways to end this movement. The Vietnam anti-war movement stopped dead in its tracks after a bombing at the University of Wisconsin that killed a physics grad student (who, if alive today, might be on our side).

If the truth is on your side, you just keep repeating it. That's the best method.

I wonder if some of us are not getting bored saying the same old stuff over and over to a bunch of people too lazy to think for themselves? I know I am, but that's politics--you have to make your point many times before people will listen to it.

Incidentally, the demonstrations in Florida over the tasing incident are a small sign of what will happen if martial law is declared in this country.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Critical mass is what interests me most.

Critical mass trumps violence any day.
Critical mass outweighs violence.
Critical mass is key. The Tipping Point is a must.

and what do you call "critical mass"?

I think we have to be somewhere in the 40% range right now of people that are aware that 9/11 was an inside job in one way or another.

There are the 28%ers that are absolutely unreachable, no amount of irrefutable information will ever sway these loons so you only have at best maybe 30% of the country left right now that is reachable and could theoretically finally come around to the facts.
One would think that 40% would be a "tipping point", so what's it going to take? 50-60 or 70%? or will 70% even do it?

Until we take down the corrupt & complicit propagandist media we will never reach that tipping point.

i couldnt agree more. as

i couldnt agree more. as long as our media exists as it does right now(and its only getting worse), "they" can literally get away with anything. 3000 people were murdered and the lies of that day are still paying off for the real perps. this wouldnt be possible without our media and they knew that before they did it. they knew how easy the cover-up would be.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

The Critical Mass.

The Critical Mass occurs when the goal is achieved. Whatever percentage that takes.

And I believe the only way the media will be reformed is when the critical mass to do it is reached.

Vigilantes in the movement only serve our purpose when they "wake up" enough people to take action.

Otherwise it is just an individualistic endeavor that may serve personal causes.

Besides.. A critical mass is all I know of that will get my and this movements goals met.

True Story. Any other suggestions???

I stopped reading after this asininity

quote: "The non-violent means we have so far used to save our Constitution, stop the imposition of a martial law state, and stop World War III seem to have failed*."

(I don't mean to be harsh, but come on!)

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist


Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

Why is that statement

asinine? Are we able to stop a war against Iran doing what we've been doing? Were we able to restore Habeas Corpus? Stop tasering or leg-breaking of people like Reverend Yearwood or Andrew Mey?