It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
There seems to be a rise in threads and talks about violent resistance against government, NWO, etc.
I have seen quite some people talking on these boards for example about taking up arms to defend themselves from the tyranny from governments.

When reading into certain subjects like the federal and national bank systems and the way they seem to bleed to people dry, i had many times as first impulse the urge to form some sort of militia and fight these ........ .
But giving it lot's of thought over the years i realise that these "powers that be" have the monopoly on weapons and violence.

So is there no other way to fight or oppose this system without turning things into a bloodbath, with out turning this into the same violent thing i am trying to fight?
I think there is, or at least i know one clear example.

Resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience.
Non violence and Non-cooperation.
And a great example of how this can work we have from history with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.



Gandhi employed non-cooperation, non-violence and peaceful resistance as his "weapons" in the struggle against British. In Punjab, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of civilians by British troops (also known as the Amritsar Massacre) caused deep trauma to the nation, leading to increased public anger and acts of violence. Gandhi criticized both the actions of the British Raj and the retaliatory violence of Indians. He authored the resolution offering condolences to British civilian victims and condemning the riots which, after initial opposition in the party, was accepted following Gandhi's emotional speech advocating his principle that all violence was evil and could not be justified.[32] But it was after the massacre and subsequent violence that Gandhi's mind focused upon obtaining complete self-government and control of all Indian government institutions, maturing soon into Swaraj or complete individual, spiritual, political independence.

In December 1921, Gandhi was invested with executive authority on behalf of the Indian National Congress. Under his leadership, the Congress was reorganized with a new constitution, with the goal of Swaraj. Membership in the party was opened to anyone prepared to pay a token fee.

SOURCE


From what i understand, in part this worked, Non violent protest and Non-cooperation are strategy that could be of great use trying to oppose the powers that be.
It made independence possible for India from the British empire.




Brigadier: You don't think we're just going to walk out of India!

Gandhi: Yes. In the end, you will walk out. Because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate.

SOURCE




From Gandhi (1982) is a biographical film about Mohandas ("Mahatma") Gandhi, who was a leader of the nonviolent resistance movement against British colonial rule in India during the first half of the 20th century.




Non-cooperation movement

The Non-cooperation movement was a significant phase of the Indian struggle for freedom from British rule. This movement, which lasted from 1920 to 1922, was led by Mahatma Gandhi, and supported by the Indian National Congress. It aimed to resist British occupation of India through non-violent means. Protestors would refuse to buy British goods, adopt the use of local handicrafts, picket liquor shops, and try to uphold the values of Indian honor and integrity. The Gandhian ideals of ahimsa or non-violence, and his ability to rally hundreds of thousands of common citizens towards the cause of Indian independence, were first seen on a large scale in this movement.

Among the significant causes of this movement were colonial oppression, exemplified by the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, economic hardships to the common man due to a large chunk of Indian wealth being exported to Britain, ruin of Indian artisans due to British factory-made goods replacing handmade goods, and popular resentment with the British over Indian soldiers dying in World War I while fighting as part of the British Army, in battles that otherwise had nothing to do with India.

The calls of early political leaders like Mohammad Ali Jinnah (who hardened his stand in the later days of the struggle), Annie Besant, Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Bal Gangadhar Tilak for home rule were accompanied only by petitions and major public meetings. They never resulted in disorder or obstruction of government services. Partly due to that, the British did not take them very seriously. The non-cooperation movement aimed to ensure that the colonial economic and power structure would be seriously challenged, and British authorities would be forced to take notice of the people's demands.

SOURCE


[edit on 23-4-2010 by jaamaan]




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Martin Luther King, Jr.- Influence of Gandhi and Nonviolence



So i personally think this message of non violence and non cooperation is quite interesting and i would realy like to know what other ATS members think of its possibilities.

Thanks for your time if you made it this far.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jaamaan
 


There's one very important difference between the Indian situation and the American situation.

In India, there was a clear and obvious distinction between Indian inhabitants and British rulers.

People talk about 'resistance' in America- where, exactly, is your boundary line between rulers and ruled?



[edit on 23-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Hey here is my way of active revolution without violence:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ATS Worldwide Mixtape: Be a part of a revolutional network!



Peace!



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by jaamaan
 


There's one very important difference between the Indian situation and the American situation.

In India, there was a clear and obvious distinction between Indian inhabitants and British rulers.


Good point, there are obvious distinctions between America and the situation in India at the time of Gandhi.
But i do see clearly to that some of the principles raised in this thread, like non-violence and non-cooperation, could well be applied to resist government tyranny in America as well.
This strategy could be used in many situations.


Originally posted by DISRAELI
People talk about 'resistance' in America- where, exactly, is your boundary line between rulers and ruled?


I take note of some of the new threads that call for arms in a direct or indirect way to resist all kinds of things, ranging from census forms, health care bills etc.
My interest is not so much on the subject of why one wants to resist but more aimed at the possibilities of resisting in a non-violent way.

Non-cooperation could maybe even be used to resist the melting economy and the loss of jobs in America by only buying American products and only supporting American businesses, as much as one can.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
As I've said in other threads that follow this line of thought...




But keep this in mind,
rarely in history is it the case where one individual, working within a corrupt system, is the lone cause for change.

They may be the one who is celebrated later in history,
but there is usually a violent, or potentially violent force working toward the same goal as the non-violent individual.

Martin L. King came into the spotlight shortly after the assassination of Malcolm X.
The assassination of X, however, was the cause of the rise of the Black Panther Party.

During the second and third decades of the twentieth century, Jews were lobbying the Brits for a partition of Palestine.
In the background, several violent groups were also working toward that outcome, even carrying out assassinations against British royalty.

Ghandi himself advocated non-violence and civil disobedience during the Indian revolution against the Brits.

The list could go on, but the point is that while many advocate for peaceful non-violent change, the ones who seem to get the furthest have people willing to do violence operating toward the same end.

One must compliment the other.






[edit on 23-4-2010 by Oaktree]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oaktree
As I've said in other threads that follow this line of thought...



But keep this in mind,
rarely in history is it the case where one individual, working within a corrupt system, is the lone cause for change.

They may be the one who is celebrated later in history,
but there is usually a violent, or potentially violent force working toward the same goal as the non-violent individual.

Martin L. King came into the spotlight shortly after the assassination of Malcolm X.
The assassination of X, however, was the cause of the rise of the Black Panther Party.

During the second and third decades of the twentieth century, Jews were lobbying the Brits for a partition of Palestine.
In the background, several violent groups were also working toward that outcome, even carrying out assassinations against British royalty.

Ghandi himself advocated non-violence and civil disobedience during the Indian revolution against the Brits.

The list could go on, but the point is that while many advocate for peaceful non-violent change, the ones who seem to get the furthest have people willing to do violence operating toward the same end.

One must compliment the other.





Well i think the principles of non violence and non cooperation are much more interesting than the deeds of "one man".
For example, Gandhi might have started his movement with these principles but the real effect comes from the masses that stand by them.

I think this statement makes that very clear:


Brigadier: You don't think we're just going to walk out of India!

Gandhi: Yes. In the end, you will walk out. Because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate.

SOURCE


Then your second point "while many advocate for peaceful non-violent change, the ones who seem to get the furthest have people willing to do violence operating toward the same end."

This mostly leads to a change that is based on the same tyranny of violence that one tried to fight.
In effect you will become the violent enemy that you where trying to fight.

Non violent protests we can still see today and up till a certain point it seems that they can be fairly easy be ignored.
But non cooperation can be very effective i believe, even today.

I do not like to kill my enemies or people in general, i rather render them ineffective by not cooperating with them on as many levels as i can.
I do not want to become like my enemy.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
There's one very important difference between the Indian situation and the American situation.
In India, there was a clear and obvious distinction between Indian inhabitants and British rulers.
People talk about 'resistance' in America- where, exactly, is your boundary line between rulers and ruled?


Not to mention that that the Indian situation was more dire. Certainly US unemployment and anti government sentiments run high, but complacency to a degree plays a huge factor. So long as the average citizen has a working TV and food, their personal barometer for success reads well. Some may be apathetic but so long as basic forms of survival exist (TV) life continues.

brill



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
In my opinion mass civil disobedience is a powerful and effective tool that the civic authorities are afraid of, because it works.

For a situation to have escalated to the point where the masses, across all social strata, have reached concensus and agreed affirmative action, the authorities, ie, the minority group, must deploy methods to re-establish the status quo. These methods are rarely peaceful and will usually result in the prosecution of as many individuals as possible inder existing laws and the enactment of new laws that are officially designed to provide legal remedies not previously available but in reality, further curb civil liberties.

Mass concensus is usually reached on cross-cutting moral issues, issues that affect us all, regardless of culture or creed. When the masses rise up in peaceful protest against immoral regimes, laws, taxes etc, we expose the immorality of the minority ruling classes. And they do not like that as they truly believe in either their own moral superiority or their self perceived cerebral superiority that informs them that morality is for the weak.

Since Ghandi and MLK, Tianamen, the Wall, civil authorities have learned how best to suppress non violent insurrection. And their methods usually involve use of violence. The governing authorities will order the police or military to start a riot and make it appear as though some faction within the protest is responsible and has therefore, betrayed the cause. Members of the selected group will be vilified in the MSM with use of spin (double-speak) to undermine the cause, create divisions and polarise opinion, there will be mass coverage of any prosecutions, small changes or concessions made in the policies governing the offending article and then appeasement through a process of pseudo democratic engagement. Peaceful, collective, civil disobedience will most likely be met with civic violence and passive aggression against the individual.

The global economy down turn and the increasing awareness that those who control the wealth have enslaved the world through systems of monetary debt is perhaps the most problematic moral crusade the masses can peacefully rebel against. Ironically, the only way to bring about positive change that removes the ability of private entities to undermine and even bankrupt national economies is to stop using money. The industrial arm of the complex will falter, civil disobedience will lead to civil unrest and the military arm will be actioned.

Civil disobedience and peaceful protest is the most effective method for bringing about change where authorities are either not listening to the will of the people or are ineffectual. The risk is that civic and governing authorities really do think they know best and will treat you like children and give you a good hiding for your disobedience!

[edit on 25/4/2010 by teapot]

[edit on 25/4/2010 by teapot]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 


Thank you for this most interesting post on the subject.
I think you raise many valid points.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jaamaan
 


Thank you for an eye opening thread and for some ideas! I just finished reading the thread getting a great deal of attention on here concerning a report put out by the ADL calling many people incliding some fellow ATSers "violent extremists". It really is a joke and pathetic lap dog=ism on their part. They are now singling out a large minority of American people who are frustrated by their governments unrepresentative and corporatist ways.

You are right when you say though that none of these people stand a chance trying to play their "extreme violence" game. Peaceful non-compliance is the answer in my mind. AT least thanks to the words of Gandhi and MLK and your bringing my attention to it. Thank you! S+F!



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jaamaan
 


P.S. I'm stealing your thread name to use a signature as well! I hope you don't mind
It is a wonderful idea that I can get behind %100. Thanks again!



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jaamaan
 

Look I do this almost every day - and one thing is for sure - they have not started enforcing these anti-freedom measure - until they start - we should give them the benefit of the doubt.
because we can handle the truth~!
we dont even know the truth~!
we just know there appears to be a force which is dumb enough to take on 300 million armed people.
*this is how I see it playing out -- when you get stopped by a cop and its like a death sentence - then maybe then, people will choose to shoot and go. until you start hearing these types of engagements as a plague, then I have to give them the benefit of the doubt they know the lie and they know how to avoid self destruction, and in my life, I have never seen America so polarized and so trigger happy. so, I dare anyone to go ahead and kick this thing off...



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Redwookieaz
reply to post by jaamaan
 


P.S. I'm stealing your thread name to use a signature as well! I hope you don't mind
It is a wonderful idea that I can get behind %100. Thanks again!


Not a problem at all, i made this thread to spread the idea of mass civil disobedience to people who might not have heard about it before and to refresh the minds of people who did.

There are alternatives to violence to fight tyranny.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Evil
reply to post by jaamaan
 

we just know there appears to be a force which is dumb enough to take on 300 million armed people.
*this is how I see it playing out -- when you get stopped by a cop and its like a death sentence - then maybe then, people will choose to shoot and go. until you start hearing these types of engagements as a plague, then I have to give them the benefit of the doubt they know the lie and they know how to avoid self destruction, and in my life, I have never seen America so polarized and so trigger happy. so, I dare anyone to go ahead and kick this thing off...


This could well end up in a massive bloodbath if it will play out in the way you paint it.
I am just trying to think up possible better and effective way's to oppose this "tyranny".



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join