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).

Legal Disclaimer (the small print):

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 to 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."