The preoccupation with the subject of non-violence among activists in the US has succeeded in creating numerous divisions in activist circles, and Mickey Z. makes some excellent observations about this phenomenon. However, I would argue that these arguments over tactics are not merely due to vanity or the soothing of egos among activists.
When allies bicker over tactics, you can be certain vanity is ruling the day. ....
Please also understand that deriding others for not adhering to your finely tuned sense of purity (violent, non-violent, or whatever) is more about soothing your ego than about creating the changes we all seek.The One Percent's domestic social controllers use a broad spectrum of methods to contain dissent, one of the more effective ones has been the insertion into activist circles the virtues and necessity of non-violence. Through their efforts the practice of non-violence has been raised to almost a religion, and the very meaning of non-violence has been broadened to mean attacks on property. It is so ironic that the most violent regime on earth and in history has succeeded in hamstringing US activist circles by causing them to engage in endless debates about non-violent tactics.
This has been accomplished to a considerable extent by constantly referring to constructed myths about historical figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King. I think if one really researches the facts about these epitomes of virtue you would find only King who approximated the myths spread by mainstream media. And, remember, the agents of the One Percent murdered him. This was essentially the judgement in the only trial permitted where a jury of ordinary Americans (Memphis, Tennessee) examined all the evidence in the many assassinations which occurred during this awful period. (Read An Act of State by William F. Pepper.) Of course, the One Percent made sure that the trial received minimal coverage in their media.
