violence... what is it good for....
On the news...
Scene one: Protesters are on a rampage, they are dispaying violence and aggression towards the police/troops. They are smashing storefront windows, they look like the Vandals sacking Rome. Reasonable viewers are repulsed by the behaviour of the protesters and start to justify the violence exhibited by the police/troops. Many protesters who do not believe in violence go away dispirited and disgusted and disassociate themselves with that protest and do not return if the protest runs over several days. Those reasonable viewers who might have had some sympathy with the cause are nevertheless deterred from joining the protest because of the unruly and violent behaviour they had seen on TV. Only a hard-core of violent and unruly yobboes is left in the end to be beaten and bloodied in "combat".
These kinds of protests generally fail, leaving many of their less-violent erstwhile supporters of the cause disillusioned, wary of ever joining another protest. Their cause is discredited in the eyes of the general public.
Scene two: Protesters behaving peacefully and the police/troops getting violent with them. Reasonable viewers sypathise with the protesters and see the authorities as being wrong. As a result, many previously undecided citizens begin to side with the protesters. And if such protests continue over several days, the crowd generally mushrooms in direct proportion to the degree of orderlyness and peacefullness exhibited by the protesters. A great feeling of solidarity is engendered and it acts like a magnet to many who sympathise with the protesters' cause. It becomes a thing people want to be part of.
As we've seen many times in recent history, this kind of protest gathers more strength the longer it is maintained and has often toppled the most violent and powerful regimes who, the more violence they use against peaceful protesters, drive an ever greater number of people to join the protest and enrage those who once supported the regime. Provided there is a sufficiently large intital groundswell, this kind of protest invariably succeeds in achieving its aims.
I've studied TV video of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution. They were well organised, well disciplined, and totally committed to non-violence. They had special squads of ex-military personnel creating buffers between violent opponents and the rest of the their demonstrators and all they did was absorb any violence that was dished out without retaliation whilst resolutely standing their ground. They also quelled any violence erupting on their own side. this had a calming effect on the crowd and gave the demonstrators a sense of security, solidarity, and integrity. It was organised, brilliantly heroic, and totally effective.
But will the union and left-wing organisers in this country ever learn such effective and intelligent methods? I doubt it. They still justify and defend the old biffo way too much. Confronting/antagonising/attacking the police/troops is the way to go! Yo! And they wonder why they invariably fail to garner enough support for their cause to succeed. They must think the general public is as stupid as they are.
"Their eyes were dull, their heads were flat, they have no brains at all." A.B. Patterson
Wake up Lefties, and get rid of leaders/organisers who advocate or condone aggressive methods. They are losers looking to go out in a blaze of glory. They will not win.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Gandhi (About advocating non-violent civil disobedience.)
Here endeth the lesson...
Scene one: Protesters are on a rampage, they are dispaying violence and aggression towards the police/troops. They are smashing storefront windows, they look like the Vandals sacking Rome. Reasonable viewers are repulsed by the behaviour of the protesters and start to justify the violence exhibited by the police/troops. Many protesters who do not believe in violence go away dispirited and disgusted and disassociate themselves with that protest and do not return if the protest runs over several days. Those reasonable viewers who might have had some sympathy with the cause are nevertheless deterred from joining the protest because of the unruly and violent behaviour they had seen on TV. Only a hard-core of violent and unruly yobboes is left in the end to be beaten and bloodied in "combat".
These kinds of protests generally fail, leaving many of their less-violent erstwhile supporters of the cause disillusioned, wary of ever joining another protest. Their cause is discredited in the eyes of the general public.
Scene two: Protesters behaving peacefully and the police/troops getting violent with them. Reasonable viewers sypathise with the protesters and see the authorities as being wrong. As a result, many previously undecided citizens begin to side with the protesters. And if such protests continue over several days, the crowd generally mushrooms in direct proportion to the degree of orderlyness and peacefullness exhibited by the protesters. A great feeling of solidarity is engendered and it acts like a magnet to many who sympathise with the protesters' cause. It becomes a thing people want to be part of.
As we've seen many times in recent history, this kind of protest gathers more strength the longer it is maintained and has often toppled the most violent and powerful regimes who, the more violence they use against peaceful protesters, drive an ever greater number of people to join the protest and enrage those who once supported the regime. Provided there is a sufficiently large intital groundswell, this kind of protest invariably succeeds in achieving its aims.
I've studied TV video of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution. They were well organised, well disciplined, and totally committed to non-violence. They had special squads of ex-military personnel creating buffers between violent opponents and the rest of the their demonstrators and all they did was absorb any violence that was dished out without retaliation whilst resolutely standing their ground. They also quelled any violence erupting on their own side. this had a calming effect on the crowd and gave the demonstrators a sense of security, solidarity, and integrity. It was organised, brilliantly heroic, and totally effective.
But will the union and left-wing organisers in this country ever learn such effective and intelligent methods? I doubt it. They still justify and defend the old biffo way too much. Confronting/antagonising/attacking the police/troops is the way to go! Yo! And they wonder why they invariably fail to garner enough support for their cause to succeed. They must think the general public is as stupid as they are.
"Their eyes were dull, their heads were flat, they have no brains at all." A.B. Patterson
Wake up Lefties, and get rid of leaders/organisers who advocate or condone aggressive methods. They are losers looking to go out in a blaze of glory. They will not win.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Gandhi (About advocating non-violent civil disobedience.)
Here endeth the lesson...
posted by The Editor at
7:52 AM
3 Comments:
Yes, fox. You'd think they'd learn. But thousands of years of identifying winning with war, struggle with violence, has fooled many.
It's funny how we nearly invalidate peaceful people power if there's a whiff of The West associated with it rather than just see it as another example of its awesomeness.
India
Poland
Rmania
Berlin Wall
Russia
Tianmen Square (almost)
Ukraine
Beirut
It works, and it results in a lot less slaughter than warfare. And any slaughter is ALWAYS only performed by the aggressors - and it's what brings them undone. In the absence of a violent reaction, the aggressor comes face to face with his/her wrongness and it's what brings them undone.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.": Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President - Source: November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy
DS
DS, "let them take arms"... The right to bear arms... Hmmm.. against Apache helicopters, napalm-dropping jets, C-130 gunships?
Yeah right..
It's all over now, baby blue..
This is why I advocate Peaceful People Power as the most effective form of resistence.
Sure the state will kill some, but with modern media methods getting the "footage" out there, the state dare not kill too many obviously peaceful demonstrators before the people explode in outrage and the governmewnt is toppled.
Try it. It works. Come on, Yanks, show us some "freedom" in action. Take your evil government down with Peaceful People Power and maybe the world will start to respect you again. A little bit...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========