Why is everybody preaching non violence?

Why is everybody preaching non violence?

This is the question I am asking. If we look at the majority of threads about the NWO etc, why are happy to p[reach non-violence, I am myself one who preaches non violence, but as a person of maliable perceptions, I have an interest in others views.

Well, some people operate under the illusion that a peaceful "revolution" is going to change something. My opinion is that you never really get a point across unless you bash a few heads and break a few teeth off into the gum.

I advocate peaceful revolution like many others, However I fully understand it will never happen, But if we are just, we must do everything possible and exhaust ALL options, When the that fails we will know we did all that we could to prevent it.

In a way, its a means of giving peace to oneself.

We must also not tread lightly on these issues, as more then likely a revolution large enough to effect change through force, will not give any of the current adult generation the freedoms they will be fighting for.

It will be for future generations.



[edit on 27-12-2007 by C0le]

Many people may preach non-violence to avoid criminal liability. If I write on this message board, "let us all go downtown and picket so and so" I will not face criminal liability in most Western countries. If I write, "let us all go downtown and kill so and so" or "let us all go downtown and burn down so and so's building" I would be in trouble.

People are also are averse to violence. The unjust effects of a violent act can devastating and often permanent. One can always retract a false or misleading statement, but they cannot bring back to life a person who is killed. It is less costly to attack another's views with words to rebuild a building burned to the ground.

People only tolerate those who use violence when i) the violent people have a clearly just cause and ii) the violent people have no other means to advance their cause. Most causes out there are not clearly just in that there are reasonable people who oppose those causes. Also, there are often alternative means to advance the cause like the democratic process, boycotts, protests, lawsuits, and the like.

One can enact moderate changes to the social order without violence. To effect major changes, one must use violence or the threat of violence to effect major changes. People often cite Ghandi or Martin Luther King as examples of people who used non-violence to effct major change. These people look at Ghandi and King in a vacuum, though. King and Ghandi needed the presence of violent leaders to get social change.

If you examine King and Ghandi in the greater context of their time, they subconsciously or consciously, juxtaposed their message of of peacefully asking social change with radicals violently demanding even more drastic social change. During Martin Luther King's day, there were leaders like Malcolm X advocating the use of violence to get radical social reforms. Martin Luther King peacefully asked for less radical social reforms. King's message of peace and less drastic social reform made him a more palatable alternative than Malcom X. The consensus opinion sided with King, finding him more palatable than violent radicals. If there were no unpalatable alternative like Malcom X present, King may not have been successful in accomplishing social change.

Originally posted by djaybeetoo

Why is everybody preaching non violence?

Not everyone is. See the President of Iran.

How do you deal with people like that?

Roper

Originally posted by Roper

Originally posted by djaybeetoo
Why is everybody preaching non violence?

Not everyone is. See the President of Iran.

Plenty of people preaching violence. Does the name Osama bin Laden ring a bell?

On a practical level, violence is certainly one of the fastest ways to make the biggest changes. Unfortunately, it tends to escalate out of control like a wildfire, and burns both sides.

Non-violence is good to preach if you're hoping somebody picks up the ball and runs with it after you're dead. Historically, those who preach non-violence frequently end up dead before their time.

Thinking about revolution is sort of a hobby of mine. I came up with a few points that I think are worthy of public review.

First off, peace never works. The world is pretty much the way it is today because 99% of all peoples in the world are afraid to fight and lose their stuff. Ultimately, people are afraid of trading their material possessions for ideological possessions.

What I am saying is that for a majority of people, living a life of comfortable slavery is preferable to living a life of uncomfortable freedom. The powers that be know this and use that fact to remain in power.

The world is screwed-up because no one is willing murder in the name of peace

Imagine the world we could have today if GOOD people just had the fortitude to:

• Assassinate every opponent of universal human-rights.
  
• Murder, publicly and violently, every dictator and war-lord.
  
• Strangle every mullah, cardinal, or grand-wizard preaching hate.
  
• Trim from the tree of life entire families of politikos involved in illegal wars for profit.
  

Every revolution fails

Its true. Even the famed Revolution started by a bunch of rich white English land-holding men, was by every (logical) measure a complete failure.

Look at the Rights of Man and its sister document The Declaration of Independence they are both full of noble ideals and take a humanist point of view on government. Now, where exactly is any of that fancy stuff represented in the Constitution? Nowhere. The constitution ensures none of the rights of all people preached about in the Declaration.

What happened between the Declaration and the Constitution to cause such a large change in the goals and attitudes of the revolution?

It succeeded.

For a revolution to succeed it must fail

That brings me to my final point. For a revolution to really change things IT CAN NOT ULTIMATELY SUCCEED. This may seem at first to be a contradiction until one understands that all past revolutions are failures precisely because they succeeded.

All a successful revolution does is institute a changing of the guards. After the revolution, the structure and corruption in the government is more or less the same (sure a few names might change like the Supreme Court might become the Peoples' Court.) The only real difference is in the people who fill the same positions of power and people are easily corrupted given the same environment and the cycle continues.

Why?

During a revolution, the people who make up the movement increasingly utilize the power-holding institutions within the government for their own ends. Usually at least one or two major institutions (eg. army or police) are completely subverted by the revolution. This means that the revolution slowly undergoes of process of change where it grows and becomes more and more like the state it seeks to replace. The revolution has to undergo this change to have the same ability categorize and move information efficiently and therefore compete at the same level as the state.

In the end, the revolution must implode to ensure real change. The implosion must be complete. There can be no splinter group to rise up and take the reins and there can be no remnants of the state to take power back. This is the true nature of the revolutions and the reason I consider all historical revolutions to be simply aborted revolutions.

Jon

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint




Bingo!! You can say you are gnna kick the crap outta your neighbor all day long and not get in any trouble....But the minute you say your gonna kick the crap outta the pres or any politician,cop,judge etc...It becomes a crime and you got guys in blck suits knocking on your door


That is their way they keep you inline so you cant form a rebellion....Kinda like alot of militia meetings are infiltrated by Under cover alphabet agents....So they can stop any organized rebbelion....All about control...

reply to post by Sentinel 1


I do not know where you live, but in most parts of the U.S. threatening your neighbor is a crime. People who threaten their neighbors can be charged with making terrorist threats. They can also be subject to restraining orders. While not every threat made becomes a criminal case, police can and do take action when serious threats are being made.

I would imagine that most other Western nations are similar in that threatening one's neighbors is not only criminal, but prosecuted with some zeal.

Voxel made some good points... but how can we ever truly know if a peaceful trevolution works without ever having REALLY tried it? Has a country ever refused to fight a war?

All revolutions fail because of violence. It's whoever is the strongest man gets the glory. Then, we're right back where we started. Power-hungry madmen with no respect for life in control because they had the cunning to know what the cleverest way to threaten, beat, torture, and kill the most people was, and they used it to their advantage. Why? Because people were afraid (of something, not necessarily their leaders) and therefore subserved to whoever had the best ideas, whoever could sway the masses with words, and then slay the enemy with might.

But whenever you subserve yourself to violence and adherence to a "side", you will end up with exactly that in return, no matter what you are dying for.

Nobody seems to understand that the ruler cannot kill everyone he rules just because they refuse to comply, or else there would be nobody else to rule. Men will not fight and kill all their fellow country men who are not fighting back. Criminals may gain in the short term, but they lose in the long term... as long as their illusion of fear does not perpetuate itsself for too long.

Unfortunately, this illusion of fear has been going on for thousands of years, because people have forgotten where they come gfrom and where they are going. Everyone claims to just be planning for the future, but they act like they are just living as if they could die at any moment and it would be the only moment they have ever had to accumulate stuff and be as comfortable as possible.

The true revolution will only come when we defeat fear in our minds. If science would just admit that the mystics have been right about some things all along, things would fix themselves relatively quickly. Until that happens, and we can stop fearing losing our lively posessions, be prepared for history to repeat itself until we do.

Be prepared for every revolution to fail without REAL peace, not fear based submission.

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


*ditto*


And to add - The powers that be have successfully convinced us that a peaceful public is a correct public. They used our sensitivities to turn us weak. A weak populace is a vulnerable populace.

that was very good and true hotpink!!!!!!

nonviolence is a beautiful thing as it represents the human mind overcoming it's natural form of violence, selfishness, and vengeance...but the same nonviolence is useless against those who are quick to violence.

someone said earlier...exhaust all options until force is ABSOLUTELY necessary. if you are quick to cause harm to others you are quick to design your own demise. being quick to violence implies a lack of thought and an overdeveloped sense of vengeance. the shadow of the dark side, that is

Originally posted by indierockalien
but how can we ever truly know if a peaceful trevolution works without ever having REALLY tried it? Has a country ever refused to fight a war?

Well, this is one “peaceful revolution” of what I know, and what was very successful then.
So, it is possible.

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
Indian political and spiritual leader, called Mahatma ("Great Soul"). Gandhi helped India's struggle for independence from Britain through a campaign based on nonviolence and civil disobedience. His doctrine of nonviolent action had a profound influence on Martin Luther King Jr., the leader of the civil rights movement in the U.S, and Nelson Mandela, the most prominent figure of the black opposition to apartheid in South Africa. However, Gandhi never received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Source; www.kirjasto.sci.fi...

Some of his quotes,

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Mahatma Gandhi

hotpinkurinalmint mentioned it also.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint




[edit on 28/12/07 by spacevisitor]

peaceful revolutions are the only revolutions that don't make things worse.
besides, how is it even possible to have a voilent revolution against the nwo when no-one can agree a)who the leaders are b)what its instatutions are or c) if it even exsists.

yet it is clear what the sympthoms of oppression are, no matter who exactly is controling them, it seems quite reasonable to non-voilently resist these sypthoms and therefore upset whomever you believe is in control without ever having to know for sure who exactly you are upsetting.

if there were a voilent revolution is there anyone you trust enough to lead us afterward, and if there is then why don't you just vote them into office.

Originally posted by Roper

Originally posted by djaybeetoo

Why is everybody preaching non violence?

Not everyone is. See the President of Iran.

How do you deal with people like that?

Roper

You have a good point. See the President of the United States.

How do you deal with people like that?

I am glad that this thread has been taken by the majority of posters to discuss the subject matter as a philisophical way. That was what I originally intended. Some interesting ideas and theories have been raised and some more questions raised for further research and discussion.

Originally posted by Roper

Originally posted by djaybeetoo

Why is everybody preaching non violence?

Not everyone is. See the President of Iran.

How do you deal with people like that?

Roper

www.time.com...

Our outlook toward the world affairs is not balance of power, but a humanitarian one. We are not seeking influence or domination. We respect all peoples and all nations. We think we can live in an atmosphere of friendship and brotherhood with all. There is no need for domination or influence. Of course, from the cultural point of view, we defend certain values and principles. Human values, dignity of the people, the fundamental and basic rights of the people, and peace and brotherhood.
[]
There is no need for war. There is no need for threats or an the atom bomb either.
[]
The era for bombs and atoms and weapons has come to an end. People should be talked to with reason. Where are the ones who used nuclear bombs in Hiroshima? Their era is over. This literature belonged to 60 years ago. Now it's the time for dialogue, logic as well as law and justice. Our people and our nation have a very clear logic and sense. We're a law-abiding people. We do not need [nuclear weapons]. And it's useless for them [the Israelis] too. They are dealing with people, not an army or a political party. A nation is like a river, always flowing. A river can't be killed.

Roper, it is my suspicion, that all you know of The President of Iran was taught to you by fox news.

Sri Oracle



[edit on 28-12-2007 by Sri Oracle]

Here is what i believe to be a small universal truth.... people can preach non violence as much as they want and i respect them for it. When TSHTF they will probably be the ones that die. I know thats pretty blunt but its probably true

Fact of the matter is this isn't the 60's any more. Our government doesn't give a damn about the voice of the people. It's going to come down to how many people are really ready to do what has to happen eventually, and thats going to involve violence. All countries are founded on it. Our american independence was not taken by chaining hands together and standing in front of british soldiers singing songs of peace, it was taken at the barrel of a gun. Most of us wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for armed revolution, free men standing up for the right to be free men.... not just because of america, just because they are free humans...

I understand why people want non violent protest, and i understand the turning of the other cheek, but lets face it if some one punches me in the mouth, i'll hit them as hard as i can right back.

There is no possible way to change any thing with non violence any more. It's a sad fact but its very true. If the NWO is going to come about with in my life time, you better believe that i'll be ready for a fight.... There may be a small, or large civil war, there may be invasion, there may be a whole mess of things that people don't like talking about that could happen in our life time. I like peace as much as the next guy, in fact i love peace but i think we should be ready for anything.... and if it comes to a head i'll be one of the guys getting violent.

To really stand up for what we think is right as humans, to protect our freedom to do what we please and to make sure that our children can grow up being free, sometimes violence is absolutely necessary. I'd do anything i could to protect my family and my right as a free human being or I'm going to die trying.

One man trying to protect his family is more dangerous than 10 trained soldiers. And the same goes for one man fighting for what he believes in.

P.s.-- I'm also a firm believer that free people should not be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people... right now the people are afraid, we shouldn't be.

Violence solves lots of problems and relieves stress, what's not to like?