Mother Teresa asked us to “find someone who thinks they are alone and let them know that they are not.”

It might be as simple as a smile or a conversation with a homeless person. It might be a “thank you” to the weary cashier. It might be stopping traffic to allow a frightened animal cross the street. It might be more involved volunteer work, or a phone call, or a supportive email to someone working for an organization you admire, or lending an ear to one of your fellow advocates struggling through the pain of awareness.

Being connected takes courage.  Whatever the struggle, we don’t have to go it alone. You might be surprised how this continued practice of being kind and helping others will come full circle. You might find that, in fact, you weren’t holding up your friend, but that you were holding up each other.

January 15th marked the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He would have been 81 years old this year.

Why was he murdered?  Some of you may have read the transcripts and/or the summary of the 1999 trial brought forward by Dr. King’s family and underreported by the media in which it was proven that “Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agencies of his own government.”  While I won’t go into details here of the links to government (you may read the summary by Jim Douglas here), I would like to explore with you why Dr. King was a threat to the violent power structure.

It is burned into our collective memory that Dr. King was killed because of racism – this is not true.  He was killed because of classism.  Money.  Yes, it is true, very true, that in the U.S. race has been used as a dividing line and this racism floods across the globe, but the division has been perpetuated for financial gain.  First by enslaving people.  Then by exploiting a working class perpetuated by racism (this extends to sexism).  And all the while race was used as a distraction – to keep the working classes fighting each other rather than joining hands and casting a questioning eye to the mansion on the hill.

Dr. King was pulling back the curtain, exposing the manipulators.  He was assassinated one year to the day after his speaking out against the war on Vietnam.  His speech (and his outspoken stance in the year preceding his death) shone a light on the war – showing us that it was racist and classist – sending poor people (disproportionately people of color) to kill poor people (people of color).

Dr. King had become dangerous to greedy, unethical profiteers (starting with war profiteers) and the cultural elite because he was pointing to the mansion on the hill… and people were beginning to stop what they were doing and look to where he was pointing.

Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon described it better than I can…

“… after passage of civil rights acts in 1964 and 1965, King began challenging the nation’s fundamental priorities. He maintained that civil rights laws were empty without “human rights” — including economic rights. For people too poor to eat at a restaurant or afford a decent home, King said, anti-discrimination laws were hollow.

Noting that a majority of Americans below the poverty line were white, King developed a class perspective. He decried the huge income gaps between rich and poor, and called for “radical changes in the structure of our society” to redistribute wealth and power.

“True compassion,” King declared, “is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.”

By 1967, King had also become the country’s most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, which he deemed militaristic. In his “Beyond Vietnam” speech delivered at New York’s Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 — a year to the day before he was murdered — King called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”

From Vietnam to South Africa to Latin America, King said, the U.S. was “on the wrong side of a world revolution.” King questioned “our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America,” and asked why the U.S. was suppressing revolutions “of the shirtless and barefoot people” in the Third World, instead of supporting them.

In foreign policy, King also offered an economic critique, complaining about “capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries.”

You haven’t heard the “Beyond Vietnam” speech on network news retrospectives, but national media heard it loud and clear back in 1967 — and loudly denounced it. Life magazine called it “demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi.” The Washington Post patronized that “King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people.”

In his last months, King was organizing the most militant project of his life: the Poor People’s Campaign. He crisscrossed the country to assemble “a multiracial army of the poor” that would descend on Washington — engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience at the Capitol, if need be — until Congress enacted a poor people’s bill of rights. Reader’s Digest warned of an “insurrection.”

King’s economic bill of rights called for massive government jobs programs to rebuild America’s cities. He saw a crying need to confront a Congress that had demonstrated its “hostility to the poor” — appropriating “military funds with alacrity and generosity,” but providing “poverty funds with miserliness.”

When I do speaking engagements, I often ask how many believe that giant corporations have too much control over government and over our lives.  Almost every hand in the auditoriums goes up.  We understand that things are out of control.  “Why do these corporations have so much power?” I ask.  “Because they have all the money!” comes the resounding reply.  That’s right, they can buy politicians, they can buy policy, they can buy countries, they can even buy us (it’s called advertising… and it works). “And where do they get all the money?”… A hush of recognition and a bit of squirming in the seats.  I draw the pointing finger back to myself, “Us,” I say and the audience nods solemnly.

This is one of the challenges of Nonviolence – to recognize the role we, ourselves, play in the violence and oppression and then to do what it takes to stop playing along.  Every dollar is a vote, whether you spend it or you don’t.  Give ONLY to those who support your values.  This is how we’ll build a society reflective of our values.  It starts with you.

Thank you for being part of this revolution.  And thank you for all that you do.

:) matt

This is a video of what I think is the most powerful and accurate speech about what war is really about since Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his speech in 1967 on the racist/classist nature of the Vietnam war.  Many believe MLK’s “Beyond Vietnam” speech given exactly one year to the day before his assassination was the keystone speech leading to his murder.  Dr. King pointed out that the war wasn’t about ideology, it was about greed — and that we were being fooled into feeding the greed of the super-elite (the “war and rebuilding” profiteers) by illusions of separateness — that we were fighting each other in the streets over racism when the enemy was violence itself and those who profit from it.

Listen and be inspired — be inspired not only about the truth of the message and its call to all of us to take personal responsibility, but for the overriding message to carry this personal responsibility into EVERYTHING we do.  War, the destruction of the planet, cruelty to animals, the trampling of human rights, these are all being driven by greed.  The tools of public manipulation to feed that greed are the same — the illusion of disconnection.  Whether we’re fooled and corrupted by racism, classism, speciesism, or militarism — the illusion of separateness fuels violence.

The other key point of this speech (and of Dr. King’s speech… and of Nonviolence United for that matter) is that of the nature of power.  Power isn’t taken from us; it is given by us.  The state of the world isn’t being done TO us; it is being done BY us.  The power is in OUR hands.  We can refuse to obey, refuse to be submissive, refuse to be oppressive, and refuse to support violent industries (including war).  WE have the power and NO ONE can force us to be part of violence, injustice, and cruelty.

Your fellow humans are not the enemy.  The enemy is violence.  Refuse to be a part of it in any way.  Reconnect with YOUR true values of kindness, justice, and compassion and refuse to hurt other people, the planet, and animals.  The power is in your hands.  We’re all in this together.

All one,

:) matt

Barbara Deming is one of the more brilliant Nonviolence theorists you’ve never heard of. She offered for many the first understanding that Nonviolence doesn’t necessarily need a religious basis. We don’t have to be saints to practice Nonviolence nor do we have to be perfect to use Nonviolence to win social battles.

A member of Nonviolence United forwarded to us this link from Chapter 12: Barbara Deming in the book “American Nonviolence: The History of An Idea” by Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Ira does a wonderful job bringing together some of Barbara Deming’s thoughts on Nonviolence. Here are a few quotes (including direct quotes of Deming) from that chapter:

“Just as Nonviolence gives more balance to those who use it, it also throws their opponents off balance. “People who attack others need rationalizations for doing so. We undermine those rationalizations.” The opponents expect a threat of losing everything, including their physical safety. When this ultimate threat is obviously taken away, they become confused; they hesitate in their response; they have to think before they act: “We undo their minds. And it is at this point that they become vulnerable to receiving a new idea.”

And…

“Balance and control come from healthy anger. This is just as aggressive as the unhealthy kind. But it is based on a belief and hope for change in social roles and institutions. Healthy anger demands change and creates the confrontations needed for change to occur. It also gives the other an opportunity to help make that change. “Our task, of course, is to transmute the anger that is affliction into the anger that is determination to bring about change. I think, in fact, that one could give that as a definition of revolution.”

And…

“To use this advantage, nonviolent activists must always oppose unjust actions rather than the people who do the actions. They must separate the unjust person from his or her role in society: ‘Seek to destroy not the abusers of power but the sources of that power, which are certainly not their particular bodies.’ By separating individuals from their roles, it is easier to establish communication with them. The more they are engaged in conversation, the more they can be influenced by nonviolent action. In all these ways, nonviolence makes the opponent the one who gets dizzy. And that gives the nonviolent activists more control of the situation.”

You may also purchase “American Nonviolence: The History of An Idea” from Orbis Books.

I thought it would be fun to offer a little clarification on what is arguably the most misused and abused reference to Nonviolence – Jesus’ teaching to “turn the other cheek.”  Pick a politician (Christian or not), pick a self-proclaimed revolutionary, pick even a weekend activist and you’ve probably heard them say something like, “I’m all for peace and Nonviolence, but if somebody threatens me or my family, I’m not going to TURN THE OTHER CHEEK!”

What they’re really saying is, “… I’m not going to DO NOTHING! I’m not going to IGNORE IT!”  But that is NOT what Jesus was saying.  This is so vitally important to understanding Nonviolence, what it is, its power, and its superiority over violence, not just morally, but strategically.

Author Walter Wink does a wonderful job of explaining this.  Here is a link to the more detailed text and/or you might learn more about Walter Wink and his work here.

But here’s an abbreviate explanation.  It involves history (not an interpretation of the Bible), and I know how painful history can be to some of us :) but read on – it’s a fascinating take on the true meaning of “turn the other cheek.”

First, let’s refresh our memory of the Bible passage:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” —Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

Here’s the history (sorry if it hurts… it’s actually pretty interesting)…

Note that Jesus said the RIGHT cheek.  This is key.  In Jesus time and place in history, the left hand was used for “unclean” purposes (I won’t go into the details… but you can probably guess some of them — imagine a time with no soap and limited water).  You wouldn’t use your left hand to purchase food, shake someone’s hand, OR even strike someone.  It would be a shameful act to use your left hand for these things.

Also, if you were to strike someone, you would use your BACKHAND to assert dominance and authority.  If you instead used your fist or slapped with an open hand, this would mean the person you were striking was your equal (or even your superior!).

OK, did you follow that?  It might help to get a partner and act this out (don’t really slap them!).  Try pretend striking them while 1. not using your left hand and 2. using your backhand to assert your dominance.  You’d be using your RIGHT hand, backhanding your inferior and striking them on their RIGHT cheek.

Aha!  “If someone strikes you on the RIGHT cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Try it.  Now, only the LEFT cheek is exposed.  In order to strike your inferior on their LEFT cheek you have to either use your right forehand or punch them (this would make them your equal) OR use your left backhand (this would shame you in public).

Jesus’ call to “turn to him also the other” or as is often quipped “turn the other cheek” is NOT a call to simply ignore the insult.  It is telling us to DEMAND EQUALITY!  Stand up to your oppressor!  Don’t take insults and attacks lying down!

Nonviolence is a brilliant way to end the violence.  Retaliating in violence to a “superior” may have in Jesus’ day resulted in death or at least an escalation to the violence.  But, Jesus was a brilliant Nonviolent strategist.  A simple turn of the head refused the insult, demanded equality and justice, and ended the violence.  This is active Nonviolence.

I also included in the Bible passage above, “And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”  Wink also gives us the historical significance of these – again, as you may have guessed, these are strategic Nonviolent actions, not acquiescence.

By offering also your cloak you would be reduced to nakedness.  But in Jesus’ time, the nakedness would be an embarrassment to the viewer, not the naked.  You would again claim justice by exposing yourself (literally) but also your oppressor.

And “walking the extra mile” – in Jesus’ time, Roman soldiers could under Roman law demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry their equipment for them – up to one mile.  However, they were not to require someone to carry the equipment for more than one mile – if they did, the soldier himself would be subject to punishment.  So, “going that extra mile” isn’t about bending over backwards and bowing to an oppressor, it again goes above and beyond to Nonviolently reclaim justice.  It will take strength and it may take suffering, but Nonviolence can, if waged strategically, overcome violence and oppression.  It requires a refusal to be humiliated.

So, you see, this passage is a Nonviolence primer, NOT an excuse to do nothing in the face of wrong.  Whether you consider yourself Christian, or hold to another religion, or choose no religion at all, the power of Nonviolence is powerful, effective, and available to you.

The misuse of this simple phrase has been used to disregard Nonviolence, escalate violence, and cause unspeakable pain and suffering.  It’s well past time we set the record straight.  ”Turning the other cheek” is NOT passivity.  It is powerful.  It is the weapon of the strong.

This is Nonviolence.

It was fun for me to discover this little but important history lesson.  And it’s entertaining to show to others.  I hope you’ll see the lesson as fun and will share it, too.

All one,

:) matt

If you’ve ever been in a debate with someone insisting that Nonviolence is impotent, it’s almost a given that they’ll raise this question when all others have been answered, “What about Hitler?” It’s the fall-back question. Hitler was “bad,” right? Can’t use Nonviolence because you have to appeal to an opponent’s inner “goodness,” right? Ha, there is such a thing as a “just war” – World War 2 proves it!

First, I have yet to meet someone arguing against Nonviolence who really understands Nonviolence. That isn’t meant to sound mean or condescending; in fact, I completely understand why most people don’t understand Nonviolence – we are immersed in violence. Nonviolence has been written out of our history and even out of our language. So, I try not to dismiss the questions (even if the questions are dismissive) because Nonviolence is very difficult to hear and understand when there is an ongoing deafening din of violence all around us.

So, here’s just a start of the answer to “What about Hitler?”

No, social advances through active Nonviolence do *NOT* rely on the “goodness within an opponent.” “Goodness” doesn’t even have to come into the equation.

First, there were plenty of examples where Nonviolence was working against Hitler (see examples of Norway and many more – please explore the work of Gene Sharp who’s spent a lifetime documenting successes of Nonviolence around the world). There were so many Nonviolent means not even explored during WWII because “when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

More importantly (and painfully for most), Nonviolence requires us to look at what role *we* play in the violence…

In the case of Hitler – his war machine could have been stopped and he should have been stopped before it even started. We (the US and the world community) knew what he was up to and we did nothing, in fact we BANKROLLED him! Before *and* during the war. Even after we were “doing something” (WW II), we (American investors and corporate profiteers) continued to bankroll the Nazi regime. Germany didn’t have the technology or the vast natural resources (oil) to run a war, so with the help of wealthy Americans, giant corporations and all the folks investing in the stock market to bankroll those corporations, the Nazi war machine kept storming forward. From Standard Oil to Ford to General Motors to ITT and IBM (which helped make it more efficient to exterminate Jewish people, homosexuals, Slavs, Black people, communists, political dissidents, and so many others on a mass scale); American/western hands are bloody.

We could have stepped in and stopped Hitler virtually overnight – by cutting the purse strings. But we didn’t because war is a money-making enterprise (not for the little folks who suffer and die, but for those bankrolling the evil venture). It continues today with our direct and very public investments.

The violence of WWII was unnecessary.  Nonviolence was simply not widely considered and executed.  Perhaps because it would’ve worked.

So, don’t be discouraged by arguments against Nonviolence. More often than not, they are simply misunderstandings and should be seen as opportunities. And remember how deeply immersed in and influenced by violence we all are – I liken it to being in a swimming pool surrounded by water. We don’t even think about being wet; but when we pull ourselves out of the water (violence) even for a minute, we suddenly realize just how wet we were/are and want to dry off and sit in the sun. Nonviolence offers that warmth and relief. Keep practicing.

Nonviolence is the weapon of the strong.  It takes a lot of practice, deep understanding, commitment, courage, strategy, and planning.  I know it’s difficult.

I’m so glad you’re on the path.

You might enjoy learning more about Nonviolence in our ongoing Nonviolence Guide.

Thank you for all that you do!

All one,

:) m

Gandhi said it and corporations and politicians co-opted it and sucked the life out of it.  But make it real and you’ll change the world.

You’re part of a NEW social movement built on compassion and personal responsibility.  Social change comes from the people UP, not from the top down.  The state of the world isn’t something being done TO us; it is being done BY us.

Each of our choices in the past built the world we live in today.  And each of our choices from this moment forward will build the world we live in tomorrow.  We will build a world reflective of our values when our everyday choices are aligned with those values.

So, c’mon!  Join the land of the living.  Be part of the solution simply by living your life completely and connectedly.

This is from our A Life Connected brochure:

How To Live A Life Connected.

You were born with values that connect you to humanity and to the world in which you live — values of justice, kindness, and compassion. Reconnect to who you truly are. Put your compassion into action and make our world a better place.

1. Connect with yourself. Become re-aware of your moral values.

2. Connect with others. Become aware of how your everyday choices impact other people, the planet, and animals.

3. Connect your choices to your values. If your choices are truly aligned with your values, stay on that path and find even more connections. If your choices are unaligned, make new, better, and more connected choices.

Thank you for all that you do!

All one,

:) m

“To attain inner peace you must actually give your life, not just your possessions. When you at last give your life – bringing into alignment your beliefs and the way you live – then, and only then, can you begin to find inner peace.” - Peace Pilgrim

Peace Pilgrim was a connector who, in the name of world peace, walked the United States for over 28 years until she was killed in an automobile accident.

Peace’s Pilgrim’s only possessions were the clothes on her back and the few items (a toothbrush, a comb, and a pen) she carried in her pockets. She carried no money and would not ask for food or shelter. It had to be offered without asking. For 28 years, all her needs were met.

“Aren’t people good,” she would often say. She spoke to all who would listen about peace — peace among nations, peace among groups, and about inner peace because she believed that was where peace began.

From the book, “Peace Pilgrim: Her Life and Work In Her Own Words”…

“After a wonderful sojourn in the wilderness, I remember walking along the streets of a city which had been my home for a while. It was 1p.m. Hundreds of neatly dressed human beings with pale or painted faces hurried in rather orderly lines to and from their places of employment.

I, in my faded shirt and well-worn slacks, walked among them. The rubber soles of my soft canvas shoes moved noiselessly along beside the clatter of trim, tight shoes with stiltlike heels.

In the poorer section I was tolerated. In the wealthier section some glances seemed a bit startled and some were disdainful.

On both sides of us as we walked were displayed the things we can buy if we are willing to stay in the orderly lines day after day, year after year. Some of the things are more or less useful, many are utter trash. Some have a claim to beauty, many are garishly ugly.

Thousands of things are displayed – and yet, my friends, the most valuable are missing. Freedom is not displayed, nor health, nor happiness, nor peace of mind. To obtain these things, my friends, you too may need to escape from the orderly lines and risk being looked upon disdainfully.”

View a 1-hour documentary about Peace Pilgrim (streaming RealPlayer)

(Get RealPlayer Here)

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.” - Mohandas Gandhi

There may be some people who are still skeptical of Nonviolence. They may not yet understand its power or its core principle that a connected society is a just society. Maybe they think violence might hurry things along. Some may even think, “Sure, you do Nonviolence and I’ll do violence… together we’d be a great team because people will be afraid of me and then they’ll negotiate with you.” It doesn’t work that way. When you are perceived as part of a movement and you are violent, the movement is perceived as violent regardless of the ratio of violence to Nonviolence.

Nonviolence is like a glass of clean water. Even one drop of blood (violence) makes all of the water bloody. Once you bloody the water it takes enormous amounts of clean water without any additional blood to hope to ever again have clean water. And even then, it will never be completely clean.

There are many reasons why violence doesn’t work in the long run:

:) matt

There’s no real word for Active Nonviolence. Nonviolence is one of those “non” words — a “not” word. But it is much more than not-violence. It is active, creative, courageous, sometimes complicated, often difficult, organized, and driven.

It’s difficult to describe, build, or recognize something that doesn’t have a name. Did the word smiths purposefully write Nonviolence out of our language and therefore out of our understanding?

Even Gandhi struggled with what to call the Nonviolent fight for India’s independence. He announced a contest to find the best word to describe the new powerful movement. Satyagraha, roughly translated from Sanskrit to mean “Truth-Force,” won the contest. But the word Satyagraha hasn’t entirely caught on… it doesn’t really roll off the tongue.

In his book, Nonviolence: 25 Lessons From The History of a Dangerous Idea (meaning “dangerous” to the status quo) Mark Kurlansky asks what if “war” was a non-word? What if the only word for war was “nonpeace?” When we would talk about waging nonpeace, our natural question would be, “Why? Why don’t we want peace?” Nonpeace seems abnormal and impotent. It’s a non-word afterall.

Kurlansky’s book goes on to explore historical examples of Nonviolence, question some of the reasons people support violence, and delve into the “25 Lessons” — all of which are summarized at the end of the book. Here are some “lessons” we found particularly interesting:

• Practitioners of Nonviolence are seen as enemies of the state.
• Once a state takes over a religion, the religion loses its Nonviolent teachings.
• A rebel can be defanged (made less threatening to the status quo) and can be co-opted by making them into a saint after death.
• Wars do not have to be sold to the general public if they can be carried out by an all-volunteer professional military.
• A conflict between a violent and a Nonviolent force is a moral argument. If the violent side can provoke the Nonviolent side into violence, the violent side has won.
• Violence does not resolve. It always leads to more violence.

Thanks for stopping by.  And thank you for all that you do.

:) matt