Sunday, October 08, 2006
Comments On Poll #5
well i wish im my heart and soul it would not have to be violent to become free but not so easy as i learned in last pole.
I have never wanted to see any human or life hert sad im starting to think violance is a answer when so many could stand together in nonviolance protest as one and fix things .But we are what we have become i guess.
this is a poll about the real choice facing anyone awakening from the dream and perceiving the nightmare of the neocon nightmare. Bravo.
There does not seem to be anything effective in ending oppression, we keep spiraling down to humanities end. But I will say non violence, it is where we should want to be and without that goal always in mind, violence becomes the way. But I say this with mixed emotions, because what is one to do when attacked but fight back. So part of me says violence, no choice.
Revolutions are as inevitable as waves on a beach so long as people believe they need to be governed. The time has come to honor that within us that is much more and better than the standards by which we are judged. Unite behind the commonality and strength of natural diversity and the need to let it grow.
Nonviolent political action promises realities of state power can be transcended through good feelings and purity of purpose. It in fact reinforces the same status-quo it claims to oppose. It depends upon and advertises the system is just. It isn't. That is the very reason for opposing it.
Resorting to violence will lower us to their level teach religious cheerleaders and other whores of those we oppose. Testimony to moral superiority by our side might make comfort zone protestors believe they'll all march to heaven (same fantasy) at their time of slaughter, but gaining get out of hell cards is not what struggle is about.
It is about winning by applying power to power. People with it don't relinquish it because they're proven morally deficient. They already know that and don't give a damn. It is exactly why they have power. That power is shed only either to save their asses or because they have no asses left to save.
Gandhi is often offered as example of a pacifist achieving his goal, but that success came at the end of long violent struggle. Those guys Kipling poetisized were shooting back. How far could Martin Luther King Jr or SNCC have gone were it not for Blacks taking to the streets in their own fashion? Remember "Burn baby burn"? Most don't know at the time movement icons were making speeches to tranquilize the press, advocates more interested in change than encouraging white posturing were in the boondocks training with weapons.
It wasn't waving cute worded placards in the wind, singing cum by ya, and lighting candles that convinced Americans to get out of Vietnam while any still survived. Breaking State Street windows, treating cops to their own medicine, and disruption and destruction halting normal commerce did help Americans accede that enough was enough. However, the change took place because Vietnamese placed more trust in guns than slogans.
Consider where profound wide spread change has occurred. Do France, USA, Russia, Mexico, China, Cuba, and ..., etc, etc, etc ring any bells? Constitutions and social organization came after. The shooting came first. Without the first, there wouldn't have been a last.
Talk today to the Bushes, Blairs, Olmerts, the kings, princes, and dictators aligned with them. Talk to all those who in effect offer support by not effectively opposing them. Convince instead those bastards to apply non violent protest in quest of what they seek. Let them feel moral making placards, singing songs, and lighting candles. Good luck.
I doubt there are any who took time out from jungle fighting to cast votes in our poll. There certainly are not any from among those too poor to play computer. I also suspect most of the votes accrued were not drawn from experience in non violent protest, certainly not any bearing lasting success. There ain't no such animal. The last phrase of our forum purpose is "...as they see fit". Good thing that leaves the vote that matters in the hands of those who want it most.
Despite the contention that non-violent protests only reinforce the opinon that the regime protested is just, I think they are more likely to gain new supporters through their brave, peaceful, obvious presence and message. Any attack upon them only emphasizes the unjust character of the regime, much more than two sides killing each other ever could. I'm not saying violence is not valid, but if winning hearts and minds is the goal, non-violence is the more persuasive. Experience may laugh at my naiveté, but I speak from the heart more than the spleen.
