As the OWS protests continue to grow, those that have the most to lose, the 1% and their Republican lackeys, are becoming more and more desperate to quash this movement. They had not anticipated the staying power that the anger of the 99% has inspired. The more desperate the 1% become, the more likely it is that their minions will strike out even more violently against the demonstrators and that their saboteurs will commit false flag operations to make the demonstrators look bad. In the following article, Laurence Lewis explains why maintaining and enforcing nonviolence is imperative.
…As Hunter noted earlier this week, the powers that be seem to have assumed that after a while the Occupy movement would just go away. They got some attention. They blew off some steam. Now back to business as usual. But that’s beginning to change. The powers that be are beginning to realize that this movement is not going anywhere but forward. The demands are serious. The depth and breadth of change needed to satisfy those demands are paradigmatic. A bare awakening is only beginning. This is for real. There is no going back. And the response has begun to get nasty. It will get nasty. Sadly, that is one measure of the Occupy movement’s initial success. But the Occupy movement’s success thus far is but initial. The continuing path forward will grow more difficult and more complicated. And the Occupy movement needs to be prepared. And given that the Occupy movement has no leadership or hierarchy, is spontaneous and organic, and is both diverse and diffuse, that means that every single person involved with or supportive of the Occupy movement needs to be prepared.
Non-cooperation is not a movement of brag, bluster and bluff. It is a test of our sincerity. It requires solid and silent self-sacrifice. It challenges our honesty and our capacity for national work. It is a movement that aims at translating ideas into action. The more we do, the more we find that much more must be done than we had expected. The thought of our imperfection must make us humble.”
A non-cooperationist strives to compel attention and to set an example by his unobtrusive humility. He allows his actions to speak for his creed. Neither in the Koran nor in the Mahabharata was there any sanction for and approval of violence. If the science of war leads to dictatorship, the science of non-violence leads to democracy. Today, more than ever before, there is a need to practice non-violent conflict resolution skills. Hence, at an individual and at a collective level, we have to seek viable alternatives to violence before we make our world an extremely hostile and unfriendly place.
Those who would destroy the Occupy movement will attempt many means, but one of the most obvious will be to attempt to marginalize the movement as extreme and irrelevant. Given that the economic issues driving the Occupy movement enjoy wide popular support, these attempts to marginalize will not focus on the issues, the facts or the goals. It will be an effort to undermine the movement as a movement, regardless of what it is about. What it is about seems too threatening to name. Therefore the attempts to destroy it will be about behavior. They will include attempts to provoke and to publicize any acts that can be construed as vandalism or violence perpetrated by anyone who can be construed as a member of the Occupy movement. And if history is precedent, that also will include such acts perpetrated by infiltrators. But whatever happens, the Occupy activists can only be responsible for their own behavior. And that not only must include refraining from any acts of vandalism or violence, no matter how abusive the tactics of authorities; it also must include attempts to condemn every possible such act as it happens. Even and especially when resisting new laws passed specifically to suppress the Occupy Movement… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Daily Kos>
I strongly believe that, if the peace movement of the 1960s had not turned violent, prompted by the police riot in Chicago 1968, we could have ended that war years before we did. That violence turned off most of America, and the war faded as a mainstream issue. If the 1% can provoke us to repeat that mistake, we will lose the moral high ground we now hold. We are the 99%, only because most of America sees this protest as commitment in the face of violence. If the movement turns violent, we will cease to be the 99%.
This is why the media are claiming that violence by demonstrators is what brought on the injuries to Scott Olsen. Here is definitive proof that these claims are lies.
Footage of Scott Olsen being shot by Police at Occupy Oakland from Raleigh Latham on Vimeo.
21 Responses to “The Need for Nonviolence”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Non-violence is the only path to success.
Amen, Patty!
The movement will succeed in making changes – only if it remains non-violent– It will become increasingly difficult to resist returning what is sure to be more violence perpetrated against Occupiers , with violence– It is our nature to fight back- but to retaliate only means the people lose . I don’t know how the hot heads will be restrained but they must be- The people are up against entrenched power with unlimited resources—- But we ..the people.. can win this battle– We must— I also remember what happened in 19968– It took many years for realization set in as to what actually happened–
From article:………..
I strongly believe that, if the peace movement of the 1960s had not turned violent, prompted by the police riot in Chicago 1968, we could have ended that war years before we did. That violence turned off most of America, and the war faded as a mainstream issue. If the 1% can provoke us to repeat that mistake, we will lose the moral high ground we now hold. We are the 99%, only because most of America sees this protest as commitment in the face of violence. If the movement turns violent, we will cease to be the 99%.
–
Well said, Phyllis.
19968 was a strange year. 😉
TC…
The video on the link is no longer on the site. I did find it on another site from a different blog who posted the name and address of the cop who he believes was the one who fired the canister that hit the Iraq veteran. That was listed in a link on the other site I mentioned above.
Thanks AP, but I just tested it. It still plays fine. 🙂
You’re right as usual, non-violent protest and assembly is the only way to go – the cops will join if we show utmost restraint -right now, at least in NYC they remain Bloomberg’s lackeys and last evening OWS moved uptown to the Mayor’s mansion while he held a “corporate” dinner there with the purpose of advancing the “fracking” plans in NY State that would affect the 16 million dependents on the Delaware River Basin for cooking, bathing and consumption
. Another situation that has been over-publicized is the fact that when many people gather together – especially in urban areas, and especially during this period of poverty that hits so hard (not to say it doesn’t hit the entire country) – urban savvy must be practiced by all participants – the fact that there have been a few computers stolen, as well as other personal property and a few instances (I don’t know how many actual cases, because they have decided in NYC to resolve these “internally”), but one rape is known to have occurred some weeks ago, and another attempt made this past Saturday. OWS or any occupation – is a possible “predatory” zone, though the cases are few, anyone participating should be alert, also aware that eyes are microscopically trained on the movement – not unlike the “Palin CrossHairs” please take precautions if you plan to go to any of these events – not all participants are alike – and not all are there for the same reasons – this is one way the media may capitalize on the “evils” inherent in the movement and the type of participants involved – BE ALERT! (just a word of advice)
Thanks Lee. Wherever people of good will gather, there will always be those among them that are not like them.
lee is on the money. These events will be infiltrated by righties posing as protesters who’s mission is to stir up trouble. The right has no conscience. They will resort to any trick they can.
Welcome Joe. 🙂
I agree.
Amen!!!
What Lynn said!
I am a fan of Mahatma Gandhi and have decided that I will watch the Sir Richard Attenborough movie tonight starring Sir Ben Kingsley. There is a part in the movie where Gandhi and his followers approach a ‘gate’ that is protected by British forces. As Gandhi and the men walk to the gate to pass through, they are beaten and many felled. The women, come and remove their fallen fellows to attend their medical needs and the march to the gate continues. Gandhiji, as he was also known, and his friends did not retaliate but kept walking forward. The British kept beating them with fists and clubs. I know that Gandhi “won” but I cannot remember all the details.
It is a different time, different circumstances but the methods must be the same. — An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind. Mahatma Gandhi
Just because all around the protesters, the police and their political masters line up to push back as the movement goes forward, does not mean the protest is wrong or without validity as long as it is non violent. — An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Mahatma Gandhi
Just remember these words. — First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Mahatma Gandhi
Martin Luther King Jr was a student of Mahatma Gandhi which is evident in his work. Here are some quotes from MLKJr.
We shall over come.
Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity.
What Lynn said again.
“I strongly believe that, if the peace movement of the 1960s had not turned violent, prompted by the police riot in Chicago 1968, we could have ended that war years before we did.”
Nixon won election on a law and order platform because of the violence in the streets caused by anti-war protesters way before 1968. Chicago cops were following Dayle’s orders, and politically, clamping down on protesters who were setting afire to military offices, post offices, and other government offices was popular by a majority. One might thank the Chicago police thugs for helping Americans change their minds about the importance of perusing the war. When the WW II generation (majority at the time) finally became anti Vietnam war, that’s when politicians lost their support for continuing the war. Until then the protesters were seen as nothing more than criminals and people thought they should be dealt with harshly.
Tom, I was there. Your description is not correct.
Not correct that there was violence before 1968 Chicago?
Not correct that Nixion won on a law and order platform?
Not correct that protesters burned government buildings?
Not correct that Americans changed their minds about Vietnam after Chicago 1968?
Guess I’m not sure what you think I got wrong, but History records these above statements to be fact.
Tom, what you said that I countered was that the Chicago 68 protesters were burning military offices, post offices and other government buildings, prompting Daley’s response. If memory serves, Daley made that claim, but a subsequent investigation determined that it was a “police riot”, not a justified response. I was there. That is not how the demonstrators behaved.
Prior to that, there was limited violence in the peace movement, but the overwhelming majority of us were peaceful. I know because I was one of the demonstrators tasked with keeping it peaceful. Extreme vandalism became more normal only after the Weather Faction took control of SDS, and that happened because of Chicago. Perhaps you were thinking of Kent State, where demonstrators did commit arson.
No, I was thinking of ROTC buildings being burned and other less, but illegal, activities going on before Chicago, not at Chicago.
In reference to your statement that I quoted: I was responding the the idea that the protests against Vietnam did not turn violent until after Chicago, or that the police (thugs) of Chicago were responsible for nationwide protests becoming violent. That I would disagree with. But certainly the level of violence did rise after Chicago.
Government puts their character on display when they decide to prosecute, or persecute according to the leaders in charge. Some come down heavy on certain crimes over others. States become known for being tough on drunk driving, while other States are known to be more lenient.
When guys started burning their draft cards; government did not have to step in and arrest. It was a minor crime, but that was the attitude the government decided to portray. Harsh.
More than a few lefties were involved in violence, which made the authorities response even more harsh. The cycle.
I’m glad to hear you were one trying to keep protests calm, but as you know you had counterparts whose job it was to create violence and attack authorities.
You are correct. There were no acts (that I’m aware of) that would defend the actions of the Chicago police in 1968.
I see. When you said Daley was clamping down on protestors, who were setting afire to… I naturally took that to mean there. There was some violence, just as there is some violence now, but they were not part of the movement. They were outsiders with their own agenda, at least in the east where my activities were focused. Ween we burned our drafty cards and the cops arrested us, we went limp. I know the entire movement, not just the fringes, turned violent after Chicago, because I was in the forefront of trying to stop it.
You’re right about the counterparts encouraging violence. They were government plants. We knew who they were, ignored their suggestions that we go beyond civil disobedience, and laughed at them when they weren’t around. They could parrot slogans, but demonstrated no real understanding. In addition, like Clinton, they didn’t inhale. Dead giveaway.