US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Violent or Peaceful Protesting?
28 May 2002
Modified: 30 May 2002
Is Pacifsm Flawed???
VIOLENT PROTESTING VS. PEACEFUL PROTESTING

IS PACIFISM FLAWED???

Henry David Thoreau once said, “The question is not about the weapon but the spirit in which you use it”. It is important to note that as a protestor I see peace as the ultimate ideology but the use of violence as an inevitable means to get us there.
Before I dwell into the absolute justifying of violent protesting over peaceful protesting, I feel obliged to make you aware that I am peaceful by nature. I am kind to all living things and treat all life with respect. However I cannot tolerate the scum that corrupts our world. And that is where I draw the line.
So how did I come to the conclusion that violence against the establishment is warranted? Well, I am one in a rare and exceptional few who have that kind of love towards the tens of thousands of humans who die daily that makes me unable to endure patiently the mass of evil and suffering. This may be misjudged and misinterpreted in connection with propaganda by the media who points to protesters as being thugs and troublemakers. However, the media makes no attempt to say that starving someone to death or forcing children to work in sweatshops is where the true violence lies.
I believe in God so I have thought real long and hard about my violent use towards whom and what I believe to be evil and I have found that Christians have long supported force for what they believe to be moral ends. From the time of the Theban Legions through the Crusades and right up to present day when Bishops bless nuclear submarines. The Bible recounts the story of David and Goliath and Jesus’ anger as he flipped over the tables of the moneychangers in the temple. These are all accounts of Christianity justifying force. Even the Vatican and Pope reaffirm the standing teaching that armed rebellion is indeed morally justified in case of prolonged and stubborn tyranny. “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God”. -- Thomas Jefferson.
The great pacifist Ghandi was stumped when asked a question during the Second World War. He was asked what course of action should the Jews take while Hitler aims to exterminate them all. His response was inevitably non-pacified. He said that the Jews should conduct a mass suicide! What a violent solution! But what else could Ghandi have said? There is no passive response to a tyrant’s actions. My beef against peaceful protestors began while at a demonstration. I saw a protestor smash a bank window (smash Capitalism). Out of the blue a peaceful protestor came over to cry about it and was yelling and ranting to the window-breaker. I rushed over and told the peaceful protestor that this lousy bank window was not worth demoralizing this human being over. That it was just glass, nothing more. I then threatened to break some windows myself and asked him what he would do about it. Walk away was all he could do. See that is the thing about peaceful protesting. Peaceful protestors are automatically thwarted into a dilemma.

As an analogy of dilemma let’s say your neighbour is a mean person who frequently comes over and beats the shit out of you. You take these beatings because of your passive ideology but one day you see your neighbour hop the other side of his property and begins to beat the shit out of his neighbour. What would a peaceful protestor do if he couldn’t call the police? He can’t pull his neighbour off. That is direct action. Does the peaceful protestor just hope that the beaten man is passive as well and can handle this beating? At any rate the peaceful protestor has a decision to make whereas I don’t. I would hop that fence in a jiffy and do some serious ass-kicking. No dilemma here.

It wasn’t hard for me to become active with a jump-started violent attitude when it comes to protesting. I think I used the simple logic that if there is a rock on the road, you can’t ask it to leave, you have to pick that little sucker up and physically move it. I sometimes wonder when watching ‘BraveHeart’ how effective William Wallace would have been if he held a sign that read, “English, Please Leave”

The funny thing about peaceful protestors is I watch them sit in one place and then the cops simply charge into them and they all get up and move somewhere else to sit. At least try to follow through on your passive resistance and stay in one place, dying if you have to. Watching you run and sit, and run and sit just makes me dizzy.

Also, peaceful protestors get clubbed and pepper-sprayed like crazy and think that people at home are going to sympathize with them if they don’t fight back. Get it through your heads. The image of you being beaten and not fighting back has already been showed. It isn’t going to save the world. These people at home are a waste of skin who are cozy playing golf and could give two shits about what happens to you; peaceful or not.

But I know for a fact that people who do want to join the cause would more likely fight to defend their lives, rather than allowing themselves to be beaten and punished.

The established elitists can be compared to a child. They will try to take what they want. They will touch things that are not theirs. They need to be reminded who the parent is. When a child touches something he shouldn’t and you respond with saying “No” for the first time, this child does not know what that word means. There has been no corresponding action to the word so he has nothing to fear from hearing it, hence all your colourful signs at the protests. It isn’t until you say “No” and show some kind of punishment at that instance whether it be a light tap on their hand or some “time out” that the child will then be able to recognize the implication of the word “No”. Now that the child knows that the word “No” displeases his motives will they finally begin to take your plea seriously. You have to treat those with reckless power in the same manner. They need to be scared. They need to be intimidated. They need to know what “No’ means. One million people carrying signs walking in circles outside my house would not scare me but one million people charging into my house about to kick my ass would. Can you correlate the difference?

I bleed, bruise and get battered for what I see is ethically and morally right to my standards. I do the opposite to what my enemy says. If he says he will only tolerate a peaceful protest, I make sure to give him the most violent protest I can muster. The politicians cry for peaceful protest and say they will only tolerate this. Do you really expect this will change their heart? Would you even trust any ruling power which is wise enough to make sufficient arguments on how you should or should not protest against them be wise enough to know that something in their structure is obviously wrong to be protested against in the first place? Peaceful protestors give them exactly what they want: Song and Dance and No Fight!!

It seems that the effectiveness of non-violence is enhanced when it stands out in sharp relief against a backdrop of actual violence. In other words non-violence needs violence in the same way that stars need the night sky to show themselves off. Non-violence is too simple. It is an easy way not to get yourself hurt or sacrifice pain for others. It is a scapegoat in having to not get your hands dirty. Anyone sitting at home watching TV can claim they are non-violent advocators. As history dictates itself, experience has shown that evil left unchecked does not eventually defeat itself or go away – you either fight it or feed it.

I choose to fight it in a world where action speaks louder than words and I will continue my absolute style of violent protest.

I realize not everyone can fight such as old ladies and those who are disabled and we need a voice that co-exists with their punishment so as long as you choose to remain peaceful, I ask that you don’t knock my ability or try to stop me in the middle of a protest.

On a final note, I don’t dislike peaceful protestors. After all, we are working for the same cause. I do disagree with your absolute peaceful methods just as you mine. But I feel secure in knowing that in time after being constantly ignored but beaten and constantly unnoticed but bruised you too will inevitably fight back. Caleb
caleb_dain (at) yahoo.ca




Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Is There Such Thing as Non-Violence?
28 May 2002
Struggle against tyranny is always "violent" to some degree.

Typically, folks who call themselves "non-violent" are:

1) willingly incurring oppressive violence upon themselves, and

2) dependent on more willful, prepared and aware citizens who enforce justice regardless of corrupt "authority".

If you pay Fed taxes (which are unlawful), you're simply paying someone else to carry out violence and terrorism in your place.

Some who employ "non-violent" tactics are self-deceiving, hypocritical or ignorant of history.

Others are pragmatic and doing the best they can under their personal limitations.

Gandhi-esque "non-violence" is quite violent. It's violent against protestors who are willing to get violently clubbed! That's their choice.

Most methods of struggle for justice and liberty are complimentary - except terrorist attacks on innocent victims, which are usually cleverly staged by fake opposition (eg: COINTELPRO, Mossad, Pinkerton) to justify more of their own oppressive violence.

Infighting between those who call themselves "non-violent" and those who don't is encouraged by tyrannical "authorities" to divide and conquer any opposition.

To understand how innocent folks are manipulated by the "Big Boys", read THE 48 LAWS OF POWER.

And learn about "our" extremely deceptive and violent banking system.

Can't change the rules unless you understand them.
See also:
egroups.com/group/jpchance
Live By the Sword
29 May 2002
First, "non-violent" protesters in this country do not get clubbed and pepper sprayed. Despite your attempts to warp the truth ( Please don't let the facts get in the way ),these "non-violent" people provoke or force the police to respond with these methods of crowd control. An example is always given how just the Blac Bloc members were acting autonomously, and the police decided to take it out on everyone. The fact is, the other demonstrators are supporting and assisting the Blac Bloc members. I have been to pre-demonstration trainings where these tactics are taught ( "Chanting" to distract the police so others can carry out direct actions; How to "un-arrest" people ). The police only resort to violence when all other options fail. Despite what your opinion of the Rodney King incident is, the truth is that the other two African- American occupants of King's car never had a hand or police baton put on them. They didn't resist arrest. They exitted King's car and layed on the crowd.
Second, if you want to resort to violent direct actions, go ahead, but when you force the powers to be to respond with force, don't whine about it later. Get a clue will you.
Huh?
29 May 2002
You make no sense. Either you're retarded, or working for the divide-and-conquer dictatorship, or both.

After all, if you're advocating so-called "non-violence", why hide your identity? Big Brother loves you.

As that slick NATO dictator Al Haig said during the old Vietnam days, "They can protest all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."

Puppet politicians. Puppet activists. Puppet government.

www.constitution.org
See also:
egroups.com/group/jpchance
What country is Me from
29 May 2002


Me says "First, "non-violent" protesters in this country do not get clubbed and pepper sprayed."

If these comments are about America, where has Me been the last couple hundred years. Protesters not only get clubbed and sprayed, they get killed.

That was the case at Kent State and in many other places in our history. Me needs a history lesson.
Ok....
30 May 2002
Kent State....That was 32 years ago. Different time...Different world ( Deep Divisions in the country over Vietnam, NOTHING comparable to that is happening here today. ). My message is ( if you assholes would get a grip ) if you piss off a dog by continueingly fucking with it, it's going to bite you. No one gets clubbed here for holding a sign or conducting an economic boycott. In other places maybe, but not here. If you assault the police...Guess what, they are going to respond. What most of you ( Insert who you are here: Rich, WHITE, supposed anarchist college student; Trust fund GRLLL/boy; Person under a "doctors" care, or in therapy who can't deal with reality; Someone who can't deal with thier sexually identity, so they have to put it in everyone's face; Or the smallest group in society, the LEGITIMATELY disenfranchised members of society ) don't understand is that smashing a window is nonsense. No one cares. Uunfortunately, money is power . Hit someone in the wallet..It hurts, and makes a statement. If you just protest and behave, no one gets assaulted on either side.. The cops are mostly just working people. ( Not many trust funds in that group). Most of the student/trust fund recipient members of our various movements wouldn't understand what it is to actually be a working WOMYN / man. As for who I am...I could be the GRLLL / guy next to you marching, a member of an "autonomous affinity group", or someone who is actually keeping tabs on you.( Spook ????????)
Me is scared silly
30 May 2002
Me is obviously some kind of cop or cop wannabe. He talks of dogs only taking so much and then biting. But what he doesn't realize is the biting works both ways. I have planted a seed with my article. There is hardly an argument afainst it. How can you argue against common sense??? You can't!!! As time passes it is 100% more likely for a peaceful protestor to become violent than an already violent protestor to become peaceful. It is easier to force aggression than to turn it back. If you want proof I get more and more violent at each protest. My weapons become more dangerous and my strategy becomes more planned. So Me it would seem that smashed windows will be the least of your problems.
Yeah Right.........
30 May 2002
If I'm a cop or cop wanna-be, your one of those right- wing assholes who was trying to incite people durring the Festival Del Pueblo..