HOW TO DESTROY THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT AND HOW TO PREVENT IT FROM FAILING
by Paul K. Chappell
October 31, 2011

Paul ChappellI graduated from West Point in 2002, served in the army for seven years, and was deployed to Baghdad in 2006. I left active duty in 2009 as a captain, and I am currently serving as the Peace Leadership Director for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, where I work to empower people with the skills and ideals that allow us to effectively wage peace.

If we compare how much the average twenty-two-year-old army officer knows about waging war and how much the average twenty-two-year-old activist knows about waging peace, there is a big difference. Although I admire their deep commitment to waging peace, many activists have not had enough training in the nonviolent methods that lead to positive change. Many activists have not thoroughly studied the brilliant techniques of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony, and other peace warriors.

Good intentions are simply not enough. If they were enough, then war, injustice, and oppression would have ended many years ago. To solve our national and global problems, we need more than just good intentions. We must also be disciplined, strategic, and well trained. Civil Rights leader James Lawson, whom Martin Luther King Jr. called “the leading theorist and strategist of nonviolence in the world,” said, “The difficulty with nonviolent people and efforts is that they don’t recognize the necessity of fierce discipline and training, and strategizing, and planning, and recruiting.”

If we truly want to promote peace and justice, we must be as well trained in the art of waging peace as soldiers are in the art of war. In the next several pages I will discuss the Occupy Movement from a strategic perspective, and I will also explain some easy ways for the opponents of change to destroy it. Only then can we protect the Occupy Movement, which is a living monument to Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy and vision.

If King had not been assassinated, he would have begun the Occupy Movement many decades ago. King had a vision called the Poor People’s Campaign, which was a plan to occupy Washington D.C. and pressure the U.S. government to create an Economic Bill of Rights. Samuel Kyles, a minister who worked closely with King and was with him during the last hour before his assassination, said: “With the Poor People’s Campaign, Martin is talking about taking these poor people to Washington, build tents, and live on the [Washington] mall until this country did something about poverty… Can you imagine what would happen if all these black and white and brown people go to Washington and build tents and live in tents in Washington?”

King’s vision to increase fairness and justice in our economic system was not fulfilled, but his vision to end segregation gave me opportunities my father never had. When I was growing up, my father always told me: “The only place in America where black men are treated fairly is in the military. People will be nice to you, but when they find out you’re part black they’ll turn on you. The military is the only place that gives black men a chance. You’ll never be able to get a decent job unless you’re in the army.”

Half white and half black, my father was born in 1925 and grew up in Virginia during segregation and the Great Depression. The U.S. Army was desegregated in the early 1950s, many years before segregation ended in the South. This made a strong impression on my father. During the 1940s and 1950s, his belief that he only had opportunity in the military was largely true. A hard worker who began picking fruit when he was six years old to earn extra income for his family, he fought in the Korean and Vietnam wars and retired as the highest enlisted rank, a command sergeant major.

My mother is Korean, and growing up in Alabama I also experienced some racism. This reinforced the fears that my father instilled in me. When I told my mother two years ago that I was leaving active duty, she said: “Are you out of your mind? Nobody is going to hire you. It’s bad enough you look Asian, but you’re also part black. Nobody is going to give a job to a black man who looks Asian.” My parents did not tell me lies. On the contrary, they told me their truth. They were describing life as they had experienced it and trying to protect me from the suffering they endured. But as an adult I had begun to realize that my racial background was no longer the hindrance my parents believed it to be, and I owe my very existence to the power of social movements.

America’s Founding Fathers rebelled against Great Britain because they felt unfairly treated. They believed it was unjust to be taxed or controlled without the opportunity to participate in the political process. The motto “No taxation without representation” echoed their outrage and became a call to arms, leading to the American Revolution. But until the 1820s, fifty years later, less than 10 percent of the American population could vote. Women could not vote. African Americans could not vote. And most white people could not vote unless they owned land. During the early nineteenth century, “No taxation without representation” only seemed to apply to the rich.

How did so many Americans increase their liberties during the past two hundred years? Did non-landowners fight a war to obtain the right to vote? Did women fight a war to get the right to vote? Did African Americans fight a war to attain their civil rights? Did American workers fight a war to gain their rights? Was a war fought for child labor laws? These victories for liberty and justice were achieved because people waged peace, but this is a part of our history that many people do not remember.

One of the most undemocratic things I have ever heard – which I hear often – is that the American president is the leader of the free world. If we understand what the ideal of democracy truly means, we realize that the people are supposed to lead, and the president is supposed to be the administrator of the people’s will. Although we live in a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy, we still have methods to pressure our politicians to do what we want. The evidence from American history shows that nothing will change for the better unless Americans tell the president what to do. American history also shows that ordinary citizens, not presidents, are the brightest visionaries and the true engine of progress.

For example, Lyndon Johnson was not a strong advocate for civil rights when he became president, but he later supported racial equality because Martin Luther King Jr. and other members of the civil rights movement pressured him to do so. Franklin Roosevelt was not a strong advocate for worker’s rights, which included child labor laws and a five-day workweek, when he became president, but the worker’s rights movement changed his viewpoint. Woodrow Wilson opposed women’s equality when he became president, but he later supported the constitutional amendment that gave women the right to vote because Alice Paul and other members of the women’s rights movement pressured him to do so. Abraham Lincoln was not a visionary who believed slavery was wrong when he began his political career, but his views changed due to the influence of Frederick Douglass and other members of the abolitionist movement.

As a child I was taught that voting was the be-all and end-all of citizenship, and if I showed up to the polls to vote I was fulfilling my civic duty. But the women’s and civil rights movements created dramatic change, even though many of its participants had little to no voting rights. Voting is just one tool in the democratic toolbox, and we can’t build a house with just a hammer. Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. used many democratic methods such as protests, petitions, boycotts, pressuring the legal system, and changing people’s attitudes for the better. Historian Howard Zinn said: “Democracy doesn’t come from the top. It comes from the bottom. Democracy is not what governments do. It’s what people do.”

My ancestors were slaves, my grandfather in Virginia was a racially mixed African American barber, and his wife was a racially mixed African American maid. Neither of my parents graduated from college, but now I am living in a position of extreme privilege. I am not referring to money, because I have a modest income and live in a one-bedroom apartment. To me, extreme privilege refers primarily to four things.

First, I am literate. It was illegal to teach slaves to read, and for most of human history the majority of people simply could not read. Second, I am living in a remarkable era where I have greater access to information than anyone living before me. Philosopher Francis Bacon said “Knowledge is power,” and Socrates showed that in order to improve our society we must transform people’s beliefs and ways of thinking. In my apartment I have Internet access and many books and documentaries, and in the battle to change minds this is a vast source of power. Third, I can express my viewpoints without being suppressed. Freedom of expression did not exist for much of human history, and it still does not exist in some parts of the world today. Fourth, as an American citizen I have the ability to make a difference, and I intend to make the most of my citizenship.

Although my income is modest and I live in a one-bedroom apartment, from a historical and global perspective I am extremely privileged, and taking action allows me to ensure that I do not take my freedom for granted. We certainly have a long way to go before peace and justice are truly a reality around the world, but we have also come a long way. My existence is proof that progress is possible, and if we have come so far, why can’t we keep moving in a positive direction?

If politicians today said, “We should bring back slavery and segregation, and women should not be allowed to vote or own property,” people would look at them like they were insane. But two hundred years ago the majority of Americans supported those viewpoints. How did we get here, and how can we change attitudes toward the other problems that threaten humanity?

Waging peace was the weapon used by Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr., and we must arm ourselves with this weapon today. King said: “Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. It is a unique weapon in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.” If people in the past had not used the power of waging peace, I and countless others would have little to no rights today. The American Civil War kept the country together, but it took a peaceful movement during the 1950s and 1960s before African Americans truly got their human rights. And not a single European country had a war to free the slaves. The first strategic nonviolent movements in history were the abolitionist movements in Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

By understanding how my bloodline went from slavery to extreme privilege, we will better understand how to strengthen the social movements occurring today and how the opponents of change will seek to destroy them.

In The Art of War, written during the sixth-century BC, Sun Tzu said: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Knowing our enemy and knowing ourselves is a timeless strategic principle. It means being able to see the world from our enemy’s point of view, and knowing not only our strengths, but also our weaknesses. When waging peace is concerned, our enemies are ignorance, hatred, misunderstanding, and greed. King never demonized the white racists who wanted to kill him. Instead, he called them his “sick white brothers.” King believed that their minds had been imprisoned by ignorance and hatred, and he sought to use the power of truth and love to break their chains.

Not everyone who perpetuates injustice will be won over to the cause of justice, but nonviolent tactician Gene Sharp teaches that in any oppressive system there are always people in that system who will empathize with the oppressed. Nelson Mandela was able to win hearts and minds among some of his prison guards, and Wikileaks exists because people in the American government and military are leaking documents they believe the American public needs to know about. Waging peace requires us to not demonize the other side, and to do more than just preach to the choir. If we use effective techniques for persuading those who disagree with us, then we can recruit more people in oppressive systems to directly or indirectly support the change our world needs.

Governments control people by dividing them, and if I wanted to destroy the Occupy Movement the first thing I would do is encourage people in the movement to have an “us versus them” mentality. The government is notorious for planting undercover agents in social movements who intend to destroy the movement from within, and anyone who wants to destroy the Occupy Movement should use agents to increase the “us versus them” rhetoric.

This can be done with signs and slogans that portray all wealthy people, corporate employees, and police officers as evil. Occupy Movement protests in many cities have had signs with the words, “Eat the rich” (which is a message that endorses violence), and during the Occupy Oakland protest a picture was taken of an activist holding a sign, “All my heroes kill cops.” If a government agent wasn’t behind that sign, then a protestor was doing the government’s work for free.

The truth is that police officers are part of the 99 percent, and in many areas they are losing their jobs due to government cutbacks. Aqeela Sherrills, who grew up in gangs and later negotiated a peace treaty between the rival gangs the Bloods and the Crips, dealt with many bad police officers. But he said, “When the police would come and jump out of the car and everybody would run, we would just stand there. We knew our rights. We questioned and would argue the police down about violating our civil rights and run down the codes to them and everything. People thought we were crazy in the neighborhood. But there are always good cops. There were the good cops who recognized what we were doing was a benefit to the neighborhood, and who would basically tell us how to deal with those racist and renegade cops in the neighborhood by filing complaints and filing reports.”

Activist Blase Bonpane says, “If anyone in your movement advocates violence, always assume they are an undercover government agent.” If you are part of a social movement, the government wants you to use violence. Why? A basic principle of military strategy is to never confront your opponent where they are strongest, and always confront them where they are weakest. Where is the U.S. government strongest? Its greatest strength is the use of violence. The U.S. government has the most powerful military in human history and controls the army, navy, air force, marines, special forces, national guard, FBI, CIA, and police. If you fight the U.S. government with violence on its own soil – where it has home field advantage – it will crush you.

All governments work hard to maintain a monopoly on the use of violence, and the U.S. government has spent the past ten years building a massive anti-terrorism industry. The easiest way to destroy the Occupy Movement would be for people within the movement to commit violence. The U.S. government could then label the movement as a terrorist organization and crush it with force in the name of self-defense and national security.

For years I have studied jiu-jitsu, which taught me that a skilled boxer is like a lion. Just as a lion is called the “king of the jungle,” a skilled boxer usually reigns supreme in a fistfight. But when a jiu-jitsu practitioner takes a boxer to the ground and applies a submission hold, it is like pulling a lion into a shark tank. A boxer on the ground, like a lion in the water, is out of his element.

When we wage peace, we are taking an oppressive system out of its element and dragging it into deep water, because when we are violent it is best prepared to smash us. King taught us to confront an oppressive system not violently where it is strongest, but in the realm of moral authority where it is weakest. When we wage peace and those in power use violence against us, it can actually make us stronger. When peaceful civil rights protestors were blasted with fire hoses and attacked with police dogs, public support for the civil rights movement increased. When the U.S. government attacked the Bonus Marchers – World War I veterans protesting for the wages they had been promised while serving overseas – it increased the moral authority of their movement and public opinion shifted in their favor.

Star Wars expresses this metaphorically. Right before Darth Vader kills him, Obi-Wan Kenobi says, “You can’t win Darth. If you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” This metaphor applies to real life, because when the Athenians killed Socrates he became more powerful. After his execution the Athenians later regretted this injustice; they created a statue to honor him and he became a symbol that has inspired countless people around the world. When the Romans killed Jesus he also became more powerful, and when Gandhi and King were assassinated they became symbols that will never go away.

This is one reason why the apartheid government in South Africa kept Nelson Mandela in prison instead of killing him, and the dictatorship in Burma has held democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi on house arrest rather than executing her. However, unjust imprisonment can still create public outrage and shift national and global consensus. This is why when dealing with nonviolent activists, it is better to imprison than to kill, but it is far better to slander someone’s reputation than be perceived as holding an innocent person in jail.

Although there are many ways to discredit and damage a social movement, in the modern world the greatest danger to any movement is from within. The more frustrated people in the Occupy Movement become, the more likely they will be to use violence. This is cause for concern, because some protestors in the movement may not realize what they are getting into. This is not going to be like Egypt, where a ruthless dictator was toppled in a few weeks. In many ways the struggle in Egypt is just beginning, because much of its oppressive infrastructure is still in place.

To better understand the challenges ahead, we should study and draw inspiration from the struggles for civil and women’s rights, and every other social movement in history. It may take some years before significant progress is made on the issues we are confronting today. Rosa Parks was a committed activist for twelve years prior to her famous arrest incident, and King believed that the dangerous forces we are up against now are going to make the supporters of segregation look like amateurs in comparison.

If protestors aren’t mentally prepared for the challenges ahead and are expecting immediate results, their frustration will swell and the cries for violence will become more potent. Someone in the movement will say, “We’ve been doing this nonviolence thing for eight months and no significant change has happened. I am starting to get impatient. If we want change, we must resort to violence.” There are certainly people in the Occupy Movement who have this mindset now, but as frustration and impatience increase within the movement their violent rhetoric will gain more traction.

Social movements are long-distance marathons, not sprints, and they all involve a series of victories and setbacks. The better we understand this, the less frustrated we will become, the less likely we will be to lose hope due to disappointment, and the less prone we will be to becoming violent and destroying the movement from within. To be effective in any struggle for peace and justice we must balance urgency with patience, and we must be disciplined, strategic, and well trained.

What I have discussed here is just the beginning of a much longer conversation. But before we can move forward, I first had to explain why the easiest way to destroy the Occupy Movement is by getting its members to advocate and commit violence, and the best way to prevent the movement from failing is by instilling a deep loyalty to nonviolence and providing effective training in the art of waging peace. If the majority of protestors do not encourage each other to learn skills and ideals that allow us to be effective, the opponents of change may not have to do much in order to destroy the movement. It will simply collapse from within.

But I have hope, because although protestors are being told they are part of the 99 percent, I realize they are really part of the 1 percent. I am not referring to the “wealthiest 1 percent,” but the “active 1 percent” who truly practice democracy and defend its principles. Henry David Thoreau said: “There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and war who yet do nothing to put an end to them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to every virtuous man.”

According to Thoreau, for every thousand people who think something is a good idea, only one person actually does something about it. This is not just Thoreau’s viewpoint. It is also a fact of history. Less than 1 percent of Americans were actively involved in the women’s rights movement, or in the civil rights movement. When opinion polls tell us a large percentage of Americans oppose a war, we must keep in mind that only a small fraction are actively involved in solving the problem.

Today, everyone who wages peace is part of the “active 1 percent.” Their greatest wealth is conscience, compassion, courage, and commitment. Throughout history the “active 1 percent” has worked to give me and so many others the freedoms we enjoy today. Now we must use those freedoms to create the change our world so desperately needs. 

To read a follow-up article on waging peace strategies for the Occupy Movement, click here.

Paul K. Chappell graduated from West Point in 2002.  He served in the army for seven years, was deployed to Baghdad in 2006, and left active duty in November 2009 as a Captain. He is the author of Will War Ever End?: A Soldier’s Vision of Peace for the 21st Century, The End of War: How Waging Peace Can Save Humanity, Our Planet, and Our Future, and Peaceful Revolution: How We Can Create the Future Needed for Humanity’s Survival (publication date: March 2012). He lives in Santa Barbara, California, where he is serving as the Peace Leadership Director for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is working on his fourth book, The Art of Waging Peace: A Strategic Approach to Improving Our Lives and the World, and he speaks throughout the country to colleges, high schools, veterans groups, churches, and activist organizations. His website is www.willwareverend.com.

  Comments

Add a comment

Michael Fogler10-31-2011   19:31

Paul,

You make some very good points.  Training in nonviolence would be great.  And, I must beg to differ that war and oppression would have ended long ago if good intentions were enough.  I think good intentions — if they are truly there — go a long way.    Being the change you wish to see in the world, that is good intentions. War and oppression have obviously NOT been about good intentions.  It's our government and military and big corporations that have been lacking in good intentions. They have been about greed, domination, imperialism, and control over land.   If everyone really DID have good intentions, there would be no need for the Occupy movement in the first place.  So, sure, training in noviolence, you bet that's great.  But I'm not worried about the Occupy Movement turning violent.  I've been to the one in my town.  I'm confident that the Occupy locations are very into nonviolence (and know what that means) and have no delusions about anything happening overnight.  The Occupiers overwhelmingly know that it's a long, long-term effort and they know they're being watched and noticed.  As time goes on, the Occupy movement will get more organized and more skilled at what they're doing.  

Bryan Nakamura10-31-2011   21:10

Mahalo Paul. The 'movement' has already contradicted itself with widespread violence, non-peaceful civil disobedience and going off-tangent/focus with the issues. All the peacemakers can do is inform and remind the participants of the advantages of a truly peaceful activism, protest and civil disobedience...I'm going to share this, sir.    

marcos10-31-2011   21:29

We know ourselves well enough to know that there are going to be aggro 20-something males in our midst, but this piece offers no insight in how to deal with that which we know is going to happen in a healthy manner. 

How interesting that Chappell counsels against "us versus them" but not when it is us versus "those who are 'us versus them.'"  Apparently there is no space for aggro 20-something males in Chappell's 99%.

No, this is a mass movement more populist in nature than leftist or progressive.  It is not a hippie crunchy fest, which is more my speed but not where the general public is at.  Successful mass movements involve many people quickly getting out of their comfort zones and working with people you'd ordinarily not, vegans locking arms with hunters against financiers.

This can only happen when organized around very narrow but deep principles of unity, opposing finance capital dominace over government, for instance.  This will be difficult because we've had horizontal self-government intentionally bred out of us and been stripped of our knowledge of economic and political history.

So we're going to need to figure out ways to disarm the devices used to divide us politically, both those that appeal to the left as well as to the right and to find value in everyone's contribution. 

The payoff, if successful, will be huge and well worth the effort.  We can help move a social revolution in the US that finally takes us past Straight White Male dominance towards a society where all of our stories are valued but where the fundamental American values of hard work and hard play are celebrated.

Paul Chappell10-31-2011   21:45

Thank you Brian, and it's great to hear from you brother! Thank you very much for sharing this, and I hope all is well in Hawaii. And thank  you for your comment Michael. Please remember that Oppenheimer had good intentions when he helped create the first atomic bomb, so people with good intentions can cause harm. Consequently, we have to be careful not to assume that those who end up causing harm are just evil people who want to hurt others. So many of them mean well.

I have met a lot of people in the Occupy Movement who support nonviolence, but I am really surprised by the amount of violent rhetoric I am also hearing. I am noticing some warning signs, so I am encouraging everyone to emphasize the importance of nonviolence. Thank you Brian and Michael for your commitment to peace!

Respectfully,

Paul

Paul Chappell10-31-2011   23:22

Hello Marcos, thank you for sharing this. Like I said in the article, this is just the beginning of a much longer conversation. I wanted to tackle a couple of key issues in the article, but to address all of the nuances would have required an entire book, perhaps several books. There is a lot more to discuss, and I look forward to dialoguing about ways of dealing with these issues. That will be the focus of the Waging Peace Podcast, which will begin in December.

TL Scully11-01-2011   03:49

I think we're involved in something more than a Revolution--more of an Evolution--and Paul's longer lens is the appropriate looking glass. I'm encouraged that many Occupy groups (there are three now in my sparsely-populated state) are not just thinking outside the box, but living outside it--literally outside. There will always be steps backwards, but there is always something else gained. What Paul's so good at explaining (because being a mixed-race American soldier turned peace leader carries so many strands of true authority, like a beautiful DNA matrix for today's world) is that violence simply doesn't get folks what or where they want--especially not in the long-run. And the long range goal (getting shorter every day) is humanity's survival, not simply a set of political demands appropriate in the moment.

I'm old enough to see the difference between anti-cop violence in past decades and the anti-cop violence of today. Also old enough to see the difference between cop violence against protestors then and now. Both have evolved, and I am confident the active 1% will keep us on track. 

Thanks, Paul, for writing on this wonderful new development in the struggle for freedom, justice and peace.

Paul Chappell11-01-2011   10:56

Tammy, thank you very much for sharing this! I appreciated all of your insights, and I actually like the term "revolution" better than "evolution," because the word "evolution" sounds more passive to me, almost like change happens automatically on its own. But the word "revolution" implies that people have to ignite and fuel the flames of change. Therefore, what you and I are both talking about is really "peaceful revolution," which is a revolution in attitudes, beliefs, and ways of thinking. It is the kind of revolution that liberates our mind, opens our heart, and unlocks our full potential as human beings. Peaceful revolution takes longer than violent revolution, simply because peaceful revolution gets to the root of the problem, and it takes longer to cure the root causes of a problem than to treat its symptoms. Violent revolution attacks symptoms rather than confronting root causes such as ignorance, misunderstanding, and hatred, and that is one reason why violence leads to so little meaningful change. If we look at the human timeline, what we are really talking about is peaceful revolution rather than just evolution, because evolution can take millions of years, but in only a couple of generations human attitudes can significantly change toward the oppression of women, slavery, segregation, and other problems. Why can't we create similar changes in attitudes toward nuclear weapons, war, environmental destruction, lack of fairness in our political and economic system, and the other problems that threaten humanity? It will require the ideals, skills, and strategies of waging peace, and it will also require people like us working together. 

John Otter11-01-2011   14:51

'Evolution' and 'revolution' both are somewhat discriptive of Occupy movement, but also misleading. The movement is not really asking existing instituions to change, nor trying to overthrow them, as it is to replace thme with ones that support equity and pure democracy.  Really, that is all that it has the power to do considering the overwhelming power of the existing structure.  What word encapsulates that?  "Supersession' perhaps.

TL Scully11-01-2011   15:49

Yes, John! I agree. I've been calling it an "end-round" in my own mind because i've been thinking the only solution is to create a new way, not tweak the current way or even bother to dismantle it. but i still see this as evolution--of humanity and our ability to communicate/cooperate. it's revolution, too, though, in the sense that it would be a "a dramatic and wide-reaching change in the way something works or is organized or in people's ideas about it," as the dictionary puts it. Paul's phrase is "peaceful revolution," and that just about says it all. 

Katharine K11-01-2011   17:31

This is great.  But most of us need action items in a bullet list. Something digestable.  So what are some specific actions that Occupy folks can take to bring this training?  Who are we gonna call?  The NonviolentPeaceforce?  Please post on FB.

Paul Chappell11-01-2011   20:19

Tammy and John, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Mark Twain said, "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter - it's the difference between a lightning bug and lightning." When people hear the word "evolution," they think of something slow and gradual, and they think of Darwin. But "revolution" is a very American word, and it conveys a kind of power not found in the word "evolution." John, I'm not referring to a revolution that simply replaces organizations and institutions, but something that goes much deeper. I'm talking about a spiritual revolution in the minds and hearts of human beings. King referred to it as "a true revolution of values." And you are right Tammy that the two words are closer than we realize, because a "peaceful revolution" is in many ways an evolution in human thinking, being, and existence. 

Paul Chappell11-01-2011   20:28

Hello Katherine, thank you for your comment. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation can give you something much better than action items in a bullet list. We can provide actual training. If you would like some training, please call us. I travel around the country throughout the year, and here is a flyer for our upcoming summer workshop. This article is just the beginning of a much longer conversation, and the summer workshop is a 40 hour course. I hope you will be able to attend, and thank you for your hard work for peace!

http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/programs/peace-leaders/2012_summer_workshop.pdf

Respectfully,

Paul

Mike Havenar11-01-2011   20:37

This is a well-written, timely and informed article. Nonviolence is the only option, and all talk of violence should be confronted. Moreover, actual training in nonviolent protest should take place in daily classes, to show how to be arrested without provoking or responding to violence. I cringe, when I hear the word, "revolution." I spoke so in my ignorant and adventurous youth, before going to Nicaragua and seeing that  a revolution is a civil war. Nobody wins in the end, and the damage takes decades to repair. Most "revolutions" are exactly as a revolution is scientifically-defined: a 360-turn, ending  by replacing one set of tyrants with another, who hire cops to enforce their new rules. Neither do I want a 180-degree turn to where Luddites lurk. I personally would rather see a 90-degree turn to the left. American politics has always been right wing, even when a leader was perceived as being "left of center." I think Occupy Wall St. now should become "Investigate Wall Street," and demands be made for a full congressional investigation, with public exposure of the financial criminals who made this mess; to try, punish, fine and tax the big guys to make them pay back what they stole.  Bill Black says this meltdown is "70 times bigger" than the one he sent 1000 bankers to prison for in the 1980s, yet not one higher-up is sweating before our own version of the Watergate Committee. Where is our Sen. Sam Ervin?

Paul Chappell11-01-2011   22:04

Mike, thank you for your commitment to nonviolence! Here is a comment I received today from my friend at Occupy Charlottesville:

"We had a duo of anarchists come through our camp, and they installed themselves in a day as the "education" leaders. They were also soliciting donations and talking about buying guns. We had to basically run them out of camp... I am the only one who is meeting with the police to lower their fear levels. They are disproportionately afraid of us, and that is where the trouble starts, I think."

As far as the word "revolution" is concerned, I saw an interview where someone basically said to Chomsky that we shouldn't use the word "freedom" anymore, because the word has been tainted by warmongers. I can think of other words that have been tainted such as hope and patriotism. But Chomsky said that if we aren't willing to use a word because we don't like how someone else used it, then we aren't going to have any words left! What I think we must do is take back the meaning of these words and also add new meaning to them. I use the term "peaceful revolution" to distinguish between our mission and the violent revolutions of the past. Certainly, the word revolution doesn't have to imply a violent overthrow (e.g. agricultural revolution, industrial revolution, scientific revolution, Copernican revolution, information revolution, etc.) Thank you for sharing your thoughts and for working for a peaceful future, and this is important to discuss. And yes, a true investigation into Wall Street and the economic crisis is long overdue!

Barb Mallin, Mentor, Ohio11-02-2011   03:42

Thank you, Paul,  for this valuable information to all who are part of the Occupy Movement, whether in person or in spirit.  Since reading your books and hearing you speak here in Ohio,  I have been dedicated to supporting your mission to seek peace through nonviolence.  For me you are the Ghandi and the Martin Luther King that we so desperately need in America right now. 

 I recall how much time you spent researching and studying nonviolence, even while you were here speaking in 7 different places in 5 days.  I also experienced first hand the personal peace that you possess, something we learn about the very first day at every Peace Intensive conducted by The National Peace Academy.  Without this inner peace, seeking peace outside ourselves becomes impossible.  It is this personal peace that enables you to respond nonviolently to conflict and to everyone who confronts you with a view different from yours.   I know, Paul, that what you express is more than just your opinion.  It is the result of years of personal experience (including three years in Iraq),  professional studies, and persistent research.  What you write is based on facts, on historical evidence, and on your own life experience seeking personal peace.  

I support you 100% in your statements about the importance of keeping the Occupy Movement nonviolent.  To do otherwise would be to destroy it.  I will be sending this to everyone in my address book, especially  to all of my fellow alumni of The National Peace Academy (www.nationalpeaceacademy.us) , many of whom are presently participating in Occupy Movements.   They have been writing about the excellent training they are receiving in nonviolence, a continuation of the education they received at the Academy.  

Thank you again for your persistent cry to America and to the world that a peaceful revolution is possible and that it can only be achieved through nonviolence.  I hope all who are reading this article will also read your books, especially the new one coming out next year called Peaceful Revolution.  It will contain a lot of the specific methods for achieving peace nonviolently, methods I see clearly many people are seeking.  Perhaps as you continue this dialogue you will be sharing many of these, such as the knowledge and discipline you refer to in this article. 

May you continue to have the courage to speak out for peaceful nonviolent revolution, Paul, not just in your writings but in your actions as you tour this country with a message we all need to hear, not just with our ears, but in the depths of our hearts.

David Hazen11-02-2011   06:28

Paul, I appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation here. I have admired your work from afar and feel priviliged to have this opportunity to almost sit next to you. I've been associated with the campaign for a US Department of Peace and the National Peace Academy. I know many knowledgable peace activists who are leaping into the Occupation for the cause of sustainable movement. We sense this is our window of opportunity to nudge world consciousness into the long-hoped for paradigm of cooperation, and we see it being birthed in the General Assemblies and Committees. The emphasis on listening and consensus is fierce, which gives us great hope. Yes, there are many damaged personalities attracted to the movement, and my hope is that the many modelers of non-violence will provide the non-verbal, rapid "education" or "leading out" of the non-violent heart and action within every one of us. I know that one of the great barriers to learning non-violence is the social isolation and repression of emotion so prevalent in our Western culture. Joanna Macy has provided a great service with her work on bringing our sense of loss and grief to the surface where we can wash it away with our tears. This dispels the anger, and prepares us for the real Truth and Reconciliation, what Desmond Tutu did in South Africa. I hope that your 40-hour course includes grief work.

Paul Chappell11-02-2011   13:33

Great to hear from you Barb, and I'm inspired by your commitment to peace and grateful to know you! I hope my work helps to unlock the Gandhi and King within us all, and that more people will realize that peace work is a serious endeavor that requires a deep commitment to personal improvement and creating inner peace, along with discipline and strategic thinking. I think we need movements that have many, many, many Gandhis and Kings, not just one. It's difficult for me to think of myself as anything special when I have met so many inspiring and deeply committed activists like yourself. It's humbling to meet so many incredible people who are working for peace, and I'm just grateful to be a member of the team.   

P.S. - I wasn't in Iraq for three years; I did one deployment. I hope you are doing well Barb, and thank you for all of your compassion, kindness, and support!

Paul Chappell11-02-2011   13:57

David, thank you so much for sharing this, and I think you are right. Indeed, many damaged personalities are attracted to the movement. One of the most surprising things I have learned from first-hand experience about the peace movement is that many people become involved in these issues in part because of childhood trauma. I had a violent and traumatic childhood, and one reason I became interested in peace was to calm the tremendous rage I had within me. In my fourth book, "The Art of Waging Peace," I say in the introduction that throughout much of my life I have been obsessed with three kinds of change.

1. Societal Change - Why do I, who descended from slaves and had a father who lived under segregation, now have the freedom to express my viewpoints? How did this progress happen, and how can we continue to create positive change in our society and the world? This is one of the major themes of "The Art of Waging Peace," because unlocking the full potential of waging peace is the key not only to human progress, but our survival. 

2. Ideological Change - Why do I, who used to believe so strongly in war, now work full time for peace? How did this ideological change occur in my mind and heart, and how can we reach the minds and hearts of others?

3. Spiritual Change - How can we heal the hatred, agony, and despair in our hearts?

These three forms of change are deeply interconnected. Ideological and spiritual change help produce societal change, and societal change creates conditions that influence ideological and spiritual change. So to answer your question, I focus on grief through my emphasis on "spiritual change." I think we must develop a deep spirituality in order to be effective peace leaders. I am not referring to "supernatural spirituality," but "intellectual and emotional spirituality." Thank you for sharing your insights, and please stay in touch!

Ron Prosek, Mentor OH11-02-2011   19:02

Hi, Paul.

Your books and your talk that you gave  at our church (East Shore Unitarian Universalist) last spring have helped me to think more deeply about, war, peace, and using non-violence for social change.  I am currently a leader here in Ohio working in the anti-fracking movement.  I must tell you that I am really impressed with our young activists who seem to know instinctively that we must use only non-violent methods in our cause.  Like you, they inspire me, a survivor of the '60s, to pursue the change we want non-violently.  It is key, I agree, to see our struggles as very long-lasting--lasting, most likely beyond my lifetime and even beyond the lifetimes of my much younger activist friends.  All the great social movements have taken much time and much work by many people spanning generations.

Sometimes our own personal efforts seem puny, weak, and worthless.  This is where faith comes in--a firm conviction that the Universe bends towards justice and that moral might is the mightiest might of all--that someday our cause will prevail if we remain on the path of peace.

God bless you, and keep up the good work.

Tom Hastings11-03-2011   14:50

I've been saying for years--way back into the previous millennium--that our young people are not getting nearly enough education, training, and drills in nonviolent conflict management. Thank you for your blunt truth contrasting a young warrior with a young peace activist. Spot on. The good news is that we have hundreds of peace studies programs in colleges and universities and the year you were born there were probably about 50 or so. We are ramping up. I cannot walk more than 50 feet in Occupy Portland without running into one of my students. This changes movements. We have a long way to go, but we are on the move.

Eagle Eye11-04-2011   02:40

A good piece indeed... well thought of  & put forth....

Paul Chappell11-04-2011   18:24

Hello Ron,

      Great to hear from you brother! Thank you for your compassion and commitment, and thank you for sharing your insights with others. You mentioned many good points. Indeed, these struggles not only occur over many years and decades but also across generations and centuries. We are all links in a chain and what our ancestors began we must continue. Thank you for all of your work.

Paul Chappell11-04-2011   18:29

Hello Tom, I'm so grateful to know you brother, and I greatly appreciate all of your work! Your willingness to communicate with people from any background truly inspires me, and I'm honored to be your comrade in the struggle for peace!

Paul Chappell11-04-2011   18:29

Thank you Eagle Eye. I'm glad you found it helpful.

Disappointed11-04-2011   21:36

This article is disappointing, because it appears that the author is more concerned with presenting himself as an expert than with offering the new movement useful strategies.

.

The main point of Mr. Chappell’s piece appears to be that episodes of violence discredit social movements and bring on repression.  This point is neither original nor profound, because that dynamic has been documented and theorized repeatedly in both popular and academic literatures of nonviolence.

.

Finally, many of the activists in the Occupy movement either have training or are being trained by experienced organizers. The author assumed otherwise which, like the article itself, says more about him than about the new movement.  

Anon11-04-2011   22:50

self defence is not violence...never has been, never will.

the 1st american revolution was no 'just go limp' affair.  in this one as well, there shall surely be blood, my only hope is that it is not all ours.

Nam Army Spec.4 Infantry J.L.Drury11-05-2011   01:37

Well stated as usual Mr. Chapell.  This "movement" is finally having an effect on governments worldwide nearly.... because of the heated and growing strengths in it's numbers of common citizens.  Even paid local police employees are questioning publicly, their exact duties of protection and evidence-gathering.  It is slowly succeeding and, as you said, "It is not a sprint..."

Yours;  Doubec

Paul Chappell11-05-2011   17:33

Hello "Disappointed," I appreciate your interest in these issues and your concern for peace, but I must disagree with you due to a few inaccuracies in your statements. First of all, you are assuming that people in the Occupy Movement are receiving good nonviolence training. I have spent time at two Occupy camps where the nonviolence trainers are giving activists harmful advice that will put them and the movement at greater risk, and at one of those Occupy camps the nonviolence trainers condone the use of violence, but they don't want to get in trouble so they tell people to do it somewhere else. Earlier in this comments section I quoted my friend from Occupy Charlottesville, who said:

"We had a duo of anarchists come through our camp, and they installed themselves in a day as the "education" leaders. They were also soliciting donations and talking about buying guns. We had to basically run them out of camp... I am the only one who is meeting with the police to lower their fear levels. They are disproportionately afraid of us, and that is where the trouble starts, I think."

Some Occupy Camps are being influenced by experienced nonviolence trainers (Tom Hastings and his students are working with Occupy Portland), yet even in camps where experienced nonviolence trainers are available there are a variety tactics and strategies competing for people's attention, some of which condone or advocate violence.

Next, I'm not sure why you would suggest that I am "more concerned with presenting [myself] as an expert", because other than briefly discussing my personal background in the first paragraph, I don't come anywhere close to doing this. The easiest way to establish myself as an expert would be to mention the three books I have written, the awards I have received, and the endorsements my books have received from respected people in both the peace and military communities, but nowhere in the article do I even mention that I am an author. I suggest that you please take the "writing for change" segment of the NAPF Peace Leadership Summer Workshop, and I can offer a few principles from that workshop here for anyone who is interested.

1. In order to write in a persuasive and compelling way that does more than just preach to the choir, we cannot write the way we were taught in school. Instead of using the technical academic writing style we were taught in school, a far more effective writing style for creating change is a narrative style that relies on stories and metaphors. The army taught me that people remember stories above all else. Also, teaching through story and metaphor goes back to Aesop, Buddha, and Jesus. 

Cont...

Paul Chappell11-05-2011   18:06

2. A story's purpose should be to tie the personal to the universal, and to illustrate an idea and offer evidence. For example, in this article I discuss my personal story to convey the broader social change that has happened in America and help the reader develop a personal connection with these ideas (personal to universal), and to illustrate how I owe my existence to the power of social movements and offer evidence that progress is possible. Presenting myself as an expert in order to win an "argument from authority" is the last thing I would do, and if I did that I would have taken a much diffferent approach in this article. For example, during the personal narrative sections I spent most of my time discussing how I am a descendent of slaves, my parents didn't graduate from college, I am lucky to be literate, and I have a modest income and live in a one-bedroom apartment. If a person wants to self-aggrandize oneself as an expert, they should use a much different approach from me (e.g. I could have mentioned that I am an author or cited the awards and endorsements I have received in order to present myself as an expert in this article, but I did not do this).

3. In the "writing for change" workshop a central idea is teaching people not to use a logical fallacy called "argument from authority" that relies on prior accomplishments. Instead, a person should rely on the strength of their ideas and effectiveness of their communication. This is why I don't feel a need to self-aggrandize myself as an expert. I let my ideas do my talking for me. For example, my main talk is 75 minutes long and I talk about myself for less than 2 of those minutes. Instead of focusing on prior accomplishments, I focus just on the ideas. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISPRe27Y0sw ). The "writing for change" portion of the workshop teaches that endorsements and awards can get our foot in the door, but we are experts insofar as what we are saying makes sense.

The NAPF workshop offers nonviolence training that I think you would benefit from. If you study nonviolence more thoroughly, you will see that my arguments in this article are coming from a much different framework than traditional peace studies, and because I have been heavily influenced by military strategy much of what I am saying does sound new to many of the people I have met in the peace movement. Speaking of strategy, please understand that I don't have room to discuss specific strategic methods in this short article (only a broader strategic framework), and discussing specific strategies was not my intent. As I say in the article, "this is just the beginning of a much longer conversation," and we have to start somewhere, don't we? However, I have written books and do workshops that discuss strategy, and the NAPF Waging Peace podcast will focus more on strategy. I hope you will tune into the podcast.

Paul Chappell11-05-2011   18:17

Anon, during these challenging times I have seen many advocates of social change supporting the idea of violent revolution like yourself. I hope that more nonviolent activists will recognize this and dialogue with you and others about these important issues. Thank you for sharing.

Paul Chappell11-06-2011   00:14

Thank you for sharing your thoughts Doubec. As Ron Kovic said at Occupy L.A., the Occupy Movement is very fragile and he has concerns. Whatever happens to the Occupy Movement during the challenging times ahead, the problems the movement is trying to address will remain until we do something about them and the struggle must continue. Although it's a long-distance marathon rather than a sprint, the marathon is also filled with many unexpected twists and turns, obstacles, and even setbacks. But the struggle for peace must continue, and our hope must not be broken.

Maggie11-18-2011   10:30

I guess I'm late to the party here--a link to Paul's article was just posted on my local Occupy fb page...hope it's not too late to see a response.

I walked away from our local group a couple days back--not because of any disagreement about non-violence in our protests, but because of the interpersonal violence (both covert and overt) amongst us.  This is drawn very much along sexist lines.  The group is composed about 85% by men, and it is very much their club.  It is also 99% white, btw.  When I have spoken of inclusion, when I have said, 'where are the womyn, and the people of color?  Is there some way we are showing an image, sending a message, that is keeping them away?  Should we look at our self-presentation...etc"  I have been met with escalating malice....told I am hostile and insecure, divisive, 'that is your personal issue, there's no room for personal issues in Occupy and there are already agencies for womyn's issues', 'there is only one Occupy, if people don't want to get off their butts and come down, that's not our problem...etc' 

Some of the womyn agree, in private conversations but perhaps only naturally don't want to receive the kind of heat I've taken as the lone womyn speaking.  Some of the men agree, but don't want to be bothered thinking about it together in meetings.  Some of the men are overtly aggressive in attempts to silence me.  The last straw for me was when we had hosted a speaker from NonViolent Comm (NVC) come speak.  When I asked about making agreements together to use peaceable terms of comm, to also stand united against anyone's violent/aggressive/silencing speech in meetings, we were told by this NVC man "rules don't work, you just have to hear people out"  And yes, I asked him directly, and he answered directly that according to NVC as he understood it, we must not ask anyone to censor their speech, just hear them out, even if they are verbally attacking an individual.  The men agreed.  The 2 other womyn present, remained silent.

Can you speak to this Paul?  I will not be returning to Occupy, nor further supporting it much as I would like to, as long as we preach 'non-violence' but agree to violence upon each other.  And I cannot support a supposedly "People's Movement" that clearly, so far, has spoken primarily to men.  Yes, I know it is hard to get people out to activate...and it's no coincidence that white men have come out in such greater numbers than womyn or people of color.  The main womyn's voices I have found online, are womyn making this same observation--though some of them have greater will to do 'battle' on behalf of womyn's inclusion than I do.  Living peaceably is the whole thing!  I don't see how we can 'battle' for peace and justice.'

See my facebook page Womyn Occupy Southern IL, to see essays on inclusion and non-violence.

Katharine K11-18-2011   11:39

Maggie -

Thank you for your courage to speak up in your Occupy, and for bringing this discussion to this forum.

This needs to be national discussion.

I have received similar feedback.  That I am hypersensitive.  That it's a waste of time to talk about womyn's issues.  Including, not using, womyn is key to the success of the Movement.  Re-learning how to be with one another is key, across across gender, race, and views.

David Hazen11-18-2011   13:12

@ Maggie: 

Get heard and be understood - A place where people really listen with empathy on group conference calls regarding de-escalation, effective communication, and peaceful conflict resolution strategies, no matter if it is within Occupy, with proponents or opponents of Occupy. http://www.occupyvoice.info/
 
Maggie11-18-2011   13:57

Thanks Katharine and David--

I agree, K, it needs to be a national discussion.  However, the message going out on all the womyn's occupy sites I've seen, is that the men are fierce in their resistance to this, one way and another.  Not all the men, of course.  But a significant number of very vocal and aggressive men--reports of womyn being boo'ed off the stage in Dallas, another place the mic grabbed away from a womyn by a man protesting that there had been 'no real consensus to let the womyn's sector have the floor'.  In Sydney, a man was verbally attacked for supporting feminism both on behalf of the women and the men (I saw the post he made, which was deleted from the group's site once other men began to lambast him).   One man in my local group has been extremely aggressive toward me.   Others are mainly just offended and feel I'm blaming them for something that is not their fault--even tho I've tried to say I'm not blaming them, I'm just naming a problem that I'd like us to address together.

This tends to undermine my hope that this will be discussed on the national stage.  I don't want to give up... also don't want to be the lone voice.  Been there, done that, it's really not rewarding enough to be worth the pain involved!

Maggie

David Hazen11-18-2011   14:57

Maggie,

I feel obliged to apologize for my male brethren. I know the kind of aggression you describe is driven by our western culture of domination and violence, and that males are particularly indoctrinated to be that way. I believe it can be overcome with the persistent use of nonviolent communication, and I recommend that you become familiar with it. 

Peace is to no longer focus on the differences between “us” and “them,” and to discover the commonalities we have. For example, I share the anger, grief, and cynicism of everyone who believes peace is impossible, and I believe that we also have in common a deep longing for it. This focus is extremely powerful, for someone to be willing to expose themself to the pain of learning how to remain in the conversation about building a world that meets everyone's needs, instead of shutting down or lashing out to be in control, to be right. 

We live in a time of rapid change, when it has become more and more obvious with every passing day that power over others through aggression wastes energy and produces repeating cycles. Nothing is now more important than breaking the cycle of violence by learning how to create the joy, wonder, and power of people who listen to each other, deeply, and then collaborate together in community. Real freedom from violence comes from doing the difficult work of learning to listen, a passive response that is often considered to be the opposite of what is needed. Yet throwing ourselves into action, struggling to resolve conflict with active strategies, is exhausting precisely because it is disconnected from the whole truth of the situation. Something is missing. 

I am going to say that what is missing is non-verbal heart knowledge, and that womyn have an advantage in this area, they can read other people's emotional needs before the other person is even aware of them. I'm wondering if you would agree with that.

Katharine K11-18-2011   15:36

Maggie -

I am sure we are not alone.  I believe we could reach out and find others pretty easily.

We could start a Facebook page for this issue.   We can share on some of the other Movement FB pages for broader coverage.   

Occupy Womyn?  I mean, we've got Occupy Within, Occupy Compassion, Occupy Supplies. 

Folks need to wake up to this as well as other negative habitual patterns for how we speak, choose, and work together.  Truthout had a good article today, "Welcome Home" on the importance of welcoming disparate voices within the Movement.  With a little nudging, more can be said about including and respecting womyn and womyn's issues.

peace,  Katharine

Paul Chappell11-18-2011   18:35

Hello Maggie and Katharine,

      Thank you for sharing all of this. At Occupy Los Angeles I noticed the same problem, but in reverse. Some of the men were complaining that the female facilitators were not listening to their concerns, and when I was called on to speak after raising my hand one of the female activists kept interrupting me and would not let me talk. I also saw a female activist cut a cable going from a man's megaphone to his speaker because she did not like the religious message he was preaching from his street corner, but he wasn't even on the Occupy site and was making a lot less noise than the blaring techno music coming from the Occupy camp.  I had some other interesting experiences, and I also met a lot of great people at Occupy L.A.. If you have seen the film "Iron Jawed Angels," it shows the older female activists treating Alice Paul in a dismissive way. So I think these problems go deeper than gender differences, and that all human beings are susceptible to these flaws. My male friend sent me the following about his female friend Bailee at Occupy Charlottesville:

"Bailee was the first person to put out a call for a general assembly, and has been the driving force behind our unprecedented occupation, turning this quiet southern town upside down. She is truly a moral leader."

I am sorry to hear about the trouble you are experiencing, and I am sharing this to give you hope that perhaps the movement as a whole is not sexist. Every occupy location has its own set of problems, and thank you for being willing to discuss this. Some occupy locations are dealing with violent instigators, others are dealing with anti-semites, some are dealing with theft, assault, and other crime, and some are dealing with sexism. In some ways the Occupy Movement is a reflection of American society (and therefore reflects the problems in American society), and I think the tools of waging peace can help us resolve these conflicts and unite around our shared humanity.

Respectfully,

Paul

Maggie11-18-2011   19:16

Paul-- I appreciate your response.  I very much agree that listening with open hearts is needed.  What I see is a group that despite the best of intentions seems pretty certain that they already know what to do...and listening is not a big part of that.  Action is the thrust, with the big excitement of performing demonstrations, getting in the news, and not much thought about the long view.  I already know about the power of empathy, of listening (ever a work in progress of course) yet in this case I'm thinking a womyn could spend a whole lot of her time listening to them, and never be allowed to fully speak her own part.   That won't do for me.

Yes, I agree that womyn typically have a more heart-centered understanding of people, and this is missing for me in Occupy.  I have tried to convey that this is one reason that Occupy needs womyn to be represented more fully--we are made differently (to generalize--not to imply all womyn, or men, are just alike), our brains and primary hormones are different from men's and endow us with another way of perceiving, communicating, acting in the world.  A way that is needed to balance the masculine design and bring a greater wholeness to the picture.

But maybe that is exactly why Occupy has drawn so few womyn...and why it has been so hard for me to deal with in spite of my attraction.  I mean, maybe womyn just don't sense the heart in it, only only another battle which is the very thing drawing the men (on the whole).  I know for myself, attending meetings has been a real challenge, because I am constantly picking up on so much distress from those around me.   I came to our local group, feeling that maybe THIS would be the movement that could endure, and had some real heart.   I have been distressed myself, to hear people talk about politics so much--and for both the womyn and the men both to be so very blank about inclusion of womyn and ppl of color.

I don't know where I'm going with this.  On the whole, it was fairly painful to get involved in Occupy--something I know I have my own part in...but I think that part is mainly that I can no longer tolerate anything that is male-dominated and battle oriented, as Occupy seems to be.  I found it to be a somewhat battering experience, honestly--between all the urgency, all the broadcasting distress, and then the resentment that I should ask 'where are the womyn?  Does the image/message need some altering so that womyn understand how much this is for them, too?'  Yet in the end I might have earned the resentment--they already had a shared idea of what Occupy is, and I walked in and spoke strongly some different ideas!

I guess I just need to sit with it awhile and see if I am drawn to go back. 

Maggie11-18-2011   19:19

Maybe I can be the place where they come after Wall Street is toppled, to find out how to live a peaceful sustainable life, shared with all of life.  The path of heart.  That's what I've been after now for a long time...I'll be ready when Occupiers are done with the battle and ready to occupy their lives in a new way over the long term <3

Maggie11-19-2011   03:51

First, David, I think I owe you an apology....did I address my response last night not to you, but instead to Paul?  It's not posted yet, so I can't tell--but I think I did.  If so, oops!

Katharine--here is where I'm at: there is something deeply terrible about the fact that womyn must seek inclusion.  It is simply terrible that womyn were not included fully, from the outset of Occupy...and that now we must strategize ways to prompt awareness of our existence.  It's truly heartbreaking for me that so few womyn even see that we were excluded, as fully half of The People.  After all this time, this culture STILL  does not understand a) that womyn and men are different parts of One Wholeness that is human-ness,  and therefore, that b) nothing can be created, nothing can succeed for The People, if the female half of personhood is left out of the foundations.  It is unfathomable to me that any group planning a fundamental shift in Social/Financial Operations, would not automatically include as many womyn's voices as men's in the discussion, in the formation of a founding statement and all of it. 

I see, taking time away from the local group for perspective of distance, that whatever I and many of the thoughtful people here may believe, Occupy is a Men's Thing...moreover, it was created, and is being carried out, in the most pared-down charicature of 'manhood' possible: it is a war, started by self-identified warriors leading with anger and the idea of One Right Way.  It is heartening to see that men here do not accept that stifling notion and role of manhood, actively choose to be more whole, as any person might be!  And while as men you still have a certain power-of-privilege that womyn still do not, your very wish for wholeness--to live from your hearts along with your minds--puts you in a minority whose ideas and approach is marginalized by Occupy.

Sex-type, gender, and all the subtle parts that make up Human Beingness, is more than just womyn and men--by far.  I tend to speak for  womyn and our general capacities, and here, I greatly simplify.  Yet 'womyn' are indeed a 'monolith' (as spoken by a queer womyn) in more ways than we are not, within patriarchal mind. 

Katharine, what I deeply believe is that each of us should do, wholeheartedly and courageously, whatever gives us hope.  Yes, 'the greatest is love'--and without our sensing hope in one direction or another, our love cannot be expressed in ways that truly touch others.  If you find hope in acts of reaching for inclusion within Occupy, then please act on it--I know I will be deeply grateful for your work. 

But I've tested the waters of Occupy and found misogyny thriving there, which murders my hope.  Womyn may only choose to be as the man-warriors, or to be mere handmaidens to war.  I will return to the places where my womyn's heart and hopes are nourished instead.

Maggie11-19-2011   15:38

Ok--my earlier response addressed to Paul, really was meant in response to David. 

Now for Paul :)

It is certainly true, Paul, that people of both sexes and all ages, classes and educational levels, etc, are capable of rude behavior.  I do not claim that only men enact rudeness toward only womyn at Occupy sites.  Nor do I say that I met only problematic men locally--most were nice people I enjoyed being around, even if they were offended when I asked 'where are the womyn' and so forth.  And honestly I don't much identify with present day feminism, feeling that womyn settled a few decades back for a new, even worse place in patriarchy at a great cost to themselves.  Lots of thoughts there--as a womyn in my 50s, I've lived through a lot, and do a lot of pondering ;-)

That said, I think you do not understand about institutionalized sexism and the ways it is played out in Occupy.  I'm not going to write a book here--only suggest you read Mary Daly and Sonia Johnson, feminists who said the things which literally moved me, most profoundly.  I also suggest you get a simple head count at all Occupy sites--which I believe will tell the tale about who Occupy speaks to, and for, the most.

And  I will say this, respectfully but plainly: in your well-considered article, you threw in mention of a couple of womyn--but your article was heavily salted with quotes by many men.  You called Occupy a 'living monument to Martin Luther King Jr'....but could just as easily have called it a living monument to various peace-waging womyn.  Without realizing it, you show how little you see or value womyn compared to men--  how much more greatly the words and deeds of men impress you, compared to that of the womyn.  I honestly don't blame you, no more than I blame the local men of Occupy for the unintended sexism there.  It is the air of culture we breathe, we largely erase womyn through what the schools teach/fail to teach, in our HIStory and all of culture.  I don't blame you or the local guys, I just name what I see--and I ask for our mutual attention to this.  If you would help build a world of peace, I do challenge you to take responsibility for being more inclusive.  For finding out what womyn have done, and said, throughout time--and what we think and feel now--to consider it equally with men's achievements.  Until all understand that creating a world of peaceful sharing means fully seeing and valuing all of humanity's parts equally, I believe the best intentions will be in vain.

Now perhaps I should sign off; it's not my wish to distract your conversation, which I was glad to find going on.  I appreciate your work for peace, Paul, it is needed in this world.  I can't support Occupy anymore, but I can support you and these other good hearted people here, as well.

Alan D Ackerman11-20-2011   07:50

HAWAI'IAN HONOR YOU IN YOUR AWAKENING !!! NOW TO DO HO'OPONOPONO ...

Paul Chappell11-20-2011   16:58

Hello Maggie, thank you for sharing this. The problems you are describing are found in virtually all social movements. Social movements have many internal conflicts that have to be resolved, nor are they immune to the problems occurring in society. Social movements also have a lot of drama in the form of interpersonal conflicts, and some of the Occupy Movement locations have more drama than a television reality show. The film "Iron Jawed Angels" shows some of the conflicts between younger and older female activists, and even the civil rights movement had drama. One important skill King had was the ability to remain calm and collected while dealing with some of the difficult personalities in the civil rights movement. King was an antidote to much of the drama.  There are many female activists who are heavily involved with the Occupy Movement, and I have seen how difficult it is to assess the whole movement based on a handful of experiences, so please don't give up on it just yet. The movement needs to better represent many demographics, and because I am part African American and part Asian I am often one of the only minorities among a group of activists. I learned the hard way that even when the truth is on our side, it is possible to raise issues in a way that makes people defensive and causes them to put up a wall. Waging peace is an art and a science, and to be effective when getting our point across we must not only put a lot of thought into what we are saying, but how we are saying it.

Paul Chappell11-21-2011   00:24

Hello Maggie, I am writing this reply after reading your last response, and I hope that you will please allow me to offer some friendly advice. It's unrealistic to imagine that the Occupy Movement is a utopian society that is free of sexism, racism, and the other problems that exist in American society. If you would like more female activists to be involved in the Occupy Movement, then please consider being a part of the movement, since it needs more female activists like yourself. But if you aren't willing to be involved, then it's not fair to say that the movement won't let you participate. I'm not suggesting that you have not met some sexist people in the Occupy Movement, but I know many female activists who are doing great work in the Occupy Movement, which makes it difficult to label the entire movement as sexist. And some women I know would be offended by a claim that generalizes the Occupy Movement as sexist.

        Also, I don't quite understand your criteria for labelling something as sexist, because you seem to be basing everything on numbers. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that if men outnumber women in the movement, then it must be sexist. I am often the only African American or Asian in a room, but that does not mean that any racism is involved. As long as people treat me with dignity and respect and do not judge me based on my racial background, it doesn't matter if white people outnumber me ten to one, because we must strive to see our shared humanity. Accusing someone of being sexist is a serious allegation, and you seem to throw it around without any basis, as you did when you suggested that I am a sexist. If this is the tone you are using with other people, that might be a reason why they are not being receptive to you.

      For example, you said, "You called Occupy a 'living monument to Martin Luther King Jr' ... but could just as easily have called it a living monument to various peace-waging womyn. Without realizing it, you show how little you see or value womyn compared to men - how much more greatly the words and deeds of men impress you, compared to that of the womyn." But the fact of the matter is that King had a plan to "occupy" Washington D.C. until the U.S. government created fairness and justice in our economic and political system. The method (occupying a location) and objective (creating fairness and justice in our economic and political system) was King's plan, and he would have begun the Occupy Movement decades ago if he had not been assassinated. How exactly does crediting King for this idea make me a sexist? Please name the female activist (who had a plan to occupy a location in order to achieve economic justice) that you wanted me to credit instead of King.

(Continued...)

Paul Chappell11-21-2011   00:49

(Continued...) 

Just because King is a man, should we hold that against him? Why can't we see each other as human beings above all else? And if a woman already thought up King's plan before him, does my lack of knowledge make me a sexist?

      You also said, "You threw in mention of a couple of womyn-but your article was heavily salted with quotes by many men... I honestly don't blame you no more than I blame the local men of Occupy for the unintended sexism there." Since I quote only one Asian activist (Aung San Suu Kyi), does that make me a racist against Asians? Must I quote exactly as many women as men in order to not be labelled a sexist? In my books, I don't quote nearly as many black people as I do white people. Does that make me a racist against African Americans? To me they are human beings above all else and I don't divide people into racial, religious, or gender categories when I am quoting them. And although I do my best to quote female peace leaders, your expectations of me are unrealistic.

      For example, I often quote military generals, and they all have something in common. They are all white men. Does this mean that I am racist against African Americans and sexist against women, or does it mean that African Americans and women have been oppressed for centuries and prevented until recently from joining the highest military ranks? If a group of people are deterred or forbidden from participating in the highest ranks of any endeavor for much of their history (e.g. physics, psychology, political participation, etc), those people are going to be under-represented in that field. But if you look at the values and ideals I am promoting rather than counting how many times I quote people from each gender, you will see that I am trying my best to help create a world that is more fair and just for all, especially women.

       I acknowledge the achievements of women (especially in the women's rights movement) and emphasize the critical role I think they will play in our world's future, and there are many peace studies and women's studies programs (along with many books) where people can go to learn more about the important things women have done around the world. I am not perfect, and I am trying to quote more women, but I don't think these flaws give you any basis to call me a sexist. If that is your criteria for labelling other people in the Occupy Movement as sexist, then many of them are not going to be receptive to the important things you have to say. I want you to be effective in the vital work for women's rights, so I hope that you will please consider these suggestions. Thank you for listening.

Respectfully,

Paul

Maggie11-21-2011   03:05

Paul--

You're right, there will always be people-dramas amongst us, we are human.  I'm an idealist--and merely human, I dont' always enact my ideals--thus at times creating or contributing to drama myself.  People tell me, just often enough to keep me encouraged, that I do a pretty good job of walking my talk.  This nourishes my hope that the struggles (within and without) to fully embody my ideals is worth the difficulties.  Such as: the difficulty for a naturally plain-speaking person to mention some topics to others in a gentle-enough way for everyone to hear.

What I've seen is that are simply some topics that cannot be mentioned gently-enough.  To have asked, in friendly way, 'where are the womyn?' is to some at attack.  To have said, calmly, in response to defensiveness "I don't blame anyone here, not at all.  I'm just noticing something.  I'm saying--maybe we should look at our image, and how we express this movement in words, so as to better demonstrate how Occupy is for everyone--womyn and men, people of color, queerfolk and all"-- this is simply offensive.  Some agreed, but said to me privately--"Don't talk about it directly.  Better to just do something to get more womyn here, better to offer a teach-in or practical exercise...etc" 

And I do see some sense in this, humans being what we are.  Yet I do not accept a position of sole responsibility for attracting womyn into Occupy.  For me, if the group on the whole does not share some level of agreement and committment to making our group Whole (actively including all parts of humanity), then that's an indicator of fundamental disagreement between us (the local group and me) about what Occupy wants to be.  The fact that some womyn and men could privately agree with me, but remained unwilling to voice support in group discussions, shows that their 'support' is too limited to be useful to the group--or to me.  Because the group will not change if only one person is working on something--I will be merely an agitator they ignore.  And I will experience too much painful isolation to be the lone voice speaking.  Been there, done that, have the scars to show it.

Right now, it seems that Occupy is polarized on the issue of 'occupying physical spaces', by fighting to hold encampments against police force.  I will wait awhile, to see if Occupy can save itself from implosion by this agreement with the 'powers that be' to do battle.  'Occupying spaces' is a symbol of the struggle--not the struggle itself.  If Occupy retreats and regroups to rediscover the true core of its intended struggle, then perhaps conditions will become ripe for those like myself to receive equal voice and power in Occupy. 

Meantime, I'll continue holding a space for peace and inclusion in my own life, through all my choices.  And I'll offer my written thoughts to Occupy through my fb page, from a safe distance. 

Vita Lopez11-21-2011   08:24

I could not agree more. Thank you for sharing your story and HOOAH!

Madalyn11-21-2011   17:21

Paul - I would love to send out this great article with the 1st 6 very strong paragraphs with some solid strategies outlined. The article is too long to create traction and although 'well intentioned' needs some of your brililant action suggestions. tnx

Mark Edwards11-22-2011   02:14

Hello Paul,

                         and every one else that has added a comment. I'm stunned that no one else who has served has had the guts to write a piece like this, until now. Or maybe it's my lack of searching the right sites, I don't know, but what I do know is that the powers that be will be twisting and turning in frustration that their programming has failed in you, just as it's failed in me too! I'm proud to say i've been an active member of the St Pauls occupation from the start in the UK, and sadly i've witnessed the gradual erosion of what it started out as. It still has some amazing people fighting on its behalf, both on the front line and behind the lines, which is something you will fully understand! Now, sadly as I say, there are also some very insiduous types attatching themselves to the movement in order to gain publicity for their own agendas, and that is exactly why we need to hear from guys like all of you here.

My heart and soul has been poured into this, and now i've had to step back from active involvement based on the lies and racist deeds of both the British police and certain 'individuals' who are really only trying to bring the cause to a stand still. Heart breaking is not even close to how myself and a number of others feel about this, but we still stand for what it's about. 


Thank you Paul, your words have inspired and fired up the REAL occupiers who needed to hear your words!!!

Risto Kantonen11-22-2011   02:47

Thank you for this article, and I agree with you. I'm also sharing this with people around me.

thommy11-22-2011   05:41

And there I was thinking you looked Italian ;) Rock on my brother. Our enemies are the pseudo monarchs in the republican party, those afflicted with hyper greed, de education advocates, fascists, racists, those who accept without critical thinking, act without thought, and those who do not understand that being INFORMED, and acting on our findings is what we are tasked with by our founding fathers. I am no pacificist, but pray that waging peace will work out. TY for an interesting essay.

Barbara Goodrich11-22-2011   10:11
I'm really impressed by your article, Mr. Chappell. Part of what I like is that you're advocating non-violence and compassion, while simultaneously NOT advocating compromise. Compromise passing as "niceness" is part of what has undermined justice and democracy in this country,, enabling the right-wing to demand that their claims -- not themselves but their claims -- be treated as equally valuable as the facts. We need to be able to avoid demonizing them, while refusing to allow their falsehoods and spin to distract or divert us. Thanks!
Paul Chappell11-22-2011   12:11

Thank you Maggie, and if you would like to dialogue more offline please e-mail me at pchappell@napf.org. I appreciate your commitment to peace, and please take care!

Respectfully,

Paul

Paul Chappell11-22-2011   13:16

Hello Madalyn,

     Thank you very much for bringing this up. The focus of the first Waging Peace Podcast will be strategy, but I can quickly share one strategic suggestion. One strategy I would propose is framing the Occupy Movement's message around ideals. Some people in the Occupy Movement are framing the movement as being against corporations and against the rich, but a more effective strategy would be to simplify the message by framing the movement around ideals such as fairness, justice, and democracy. For example, I think corporations should be allowed to make iPhones and other useful products, but I don't think they should be allowed to buy politicians. I don't think they should have more rights than human beings. And the problem isn't that corporations are allowed to make a profit, but that they are focused on maximizing profit with no regard for the public good and health of our planet. Democracy is supposed to be a system where one person equals one vote, not one dollar equals one vote.

       Instead of framing the Occupy Movement around issues such as corporations and the rich, we should frame it around ideals such as fairness, justice, and democracy. Many activists I know are getting tired of opponents of the Occupy Movement saying, "Those protestors are hypocrites, because they want to destroy corporations yet they use iPhones, Google, and Facebook." But by framing the Occupy Movement around ideals such as fairness, justice, and democracy, we can say, "This is not about corporations making things. It's about fairness, justice, and democracy. It's about getting money out of politics, because the influence of money in our political system damages fairness, justice, and democracy." Perhaps "Fairness, Justice, and Democracy" could be the Occupy Movement's slogan, rather than signs that are commonly seen such as "Eat the rich."

                The gap between rich and poor along with the corporate welfare state are actually symptoms of deeper problems, which stem from our distorted value system (where profit is more important than people) and the unfair influence that money has in our political system. Ultimately, if we get money out of politics and create a value system where the dignity of life is more important than profit, a lot of the symptoms we are witnessing today will be addressed. Certainly, there are people in the Occupy Movement today who are framing the movement around ideals (just as Martin Luther King Jr. said that it's not about black versus white, it's about fairness and justice), but there has not yet been a strategic consensus that ensures we are doing our best to resonate with the American public. The people who are drawn to the Occupy Movement thus far are mostly the people who already agree with it, but a movement's success is actually determined by it's ability to reach beyond the choir and persuade those who do not agree with it.

Respectfully,

Paul

Paul Chappell11-22-2011   14:57

Hello Mark, thank you for being a part of the movement and working to solve these problems! In some ways the Occupy Movement is a social experiment, and its success depends on people like you. Also, thank you for reminding us all that the Occupy Movement is indeed a global movement. It's inspiring to see people around the world protesting in solidarity together. Indeed, more people every day are becoming aware of the reality that we are truly one global human family. The match has been lit and the Occupy Movement is just beginning, and as people wage peace in greater and greater numbers its future looks more and more promising. The book "Bearing the Cross" - a biography about Martin Luther King Jr. - discusses how they were also aware that some people might try to take advantage of the civil rights movement for personal gain. We must be vigilant! Stay staunch!

Paul Chappell11-22-2011   15:12

Thank you for sharing this Thommy and Barbara. It's important that we not demonize the other side, but you are right Barbara that we must never betray our ideals. Here's a Martin Luther King Jr. quote I think you may like, which sums up many of the problems the Occupy Movement is trying to solve.

"A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual 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, and say, 'This is not just.' ... The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, 'This way of settling differences is not just.' ... A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values."

Paul Chappell11-22-2011   17:55

Hello Madalyn, here is something I wrote in response to your request for a short article about a specific strategy. Does this work for you?

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/db_article.php?article_id=306

Scott11-25-2011   05:42

Thank you for your articulate and thoughtful suggestions. I agree with you. I have to say though, coming from Occupy LA, I haven't heard much violent rhetoric at all. There is always one guy in a group of a hundred or two hundred who will occassionally say something that vaguely alludes to violence, but such comments are always immediately met with an overwhelming response from the group reasoning with that person and calming him/her down.

That said, I would prefer if we had no such people encouraging violence in the first place. That is the real issue in my opinion. Just how do we get through to the adrenaline-fueled hot-heads who are not going to sit down and read an article like this whenever they feel compelled towards violence? Or is it perhaps not possible to get through to everyone, in which case how to we deal with people who feel that violence is the answer? If we can't reason with them, do we exclude them? If so, how?

I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on the issue. Thank you again.

CIN11-25-2011   12:15

Hi There Paul

Your article was very informing. Thank you for sharing your experiences with people all over the US.

I brought up the same logical reasoning in my classes recently about if MKL never rallied or protested and claimed they had no chance for change the Civil Rights Bill would have never been signed.

There are so many stories  in history where people (men and women) gave their lives for their beliefs in a better way of life for all- and that includes change--hopefully peaceful and strategic.

Thanks so much

CIN

Paul K. Chappell11-28-2011   00:25

Hello Scott, thank you very much for sharing this, and it's great to know that you aren't hearing much violent rhetoric. At this moment, the Occupy Movement's commitment to nonviolence seems to be increasing thanks to the countless people who believe in the power of waging peace, and it's important for this to continue especially during difficult times. To answer your question about how we can reach those who believe in violence, I have a lot of hope because I used to believe so strongly in the use of violence, yet my attitude has changed. Also, the arguments I share in this article are some of the same arguments that changed my way of thinking. Not everyone can be convinced of course, but people will often surprise us.

Furthermore, there are two kinds of people who believe in the use of violence. The first kind are those who saw violence glamorized in movies, video games, and television shows when they were growing up, but who haven't really experienced violence (e.g. been beaten to the point where they fear for their life). And the second are those who were beaten up a lot growing up and believe in violence because it has become an integral part of their personalities. I am part of the latter group, and one thing I don't discuss in the article is my violent upbringing. I am sharing this, because if my attitude could change, then so can the attitudes of many others.  Also, even people who have put a lot of work into becoming more peaceful can experience a reopening of their old psychological wounds and have a very dark day. This happens to me more often than I like. So let's try to reach people who believe in the use of violence, be patient with those who have a bad day, and draw a line that prevents anyone who continues to advocate violence from destroying the movement from within. Thank you again for sharing this Scott, and I appreciate your commitment to peace!

"Each of us is something of a schizophrenic personality. We're split up and divided against ourselves. There is something of a civil war going on within all our lives." - Martin Luther King Jr.

The Great Renewal11-28-2011   22:38

Hi Paul.

I heard you talk at Peace Conference 2011 this past September in Berkley. I spoke to you a wee bit about The Great Renewal http://www.facebook.com/TheGreatRenewal

I'm going to post your two blogs ... Peace is one of The Ga-Zillion issues facing us/the planet/the commons/species/environment.

It's wonderful that you're really stepping forward and working toward Peace.

Someone reminded me that the Innuit have about 400 words for 'snow' but we only have one word for Peace. Yet, we need to de-construct it into many attributes. For example, there is a 'peaceful' tone in one's voice. Or what you do when you're standing in a crowded line. We must look at all the ways we 'do' peace and begin to identify and Name them.

Paul K. Chappell11-29-2011   16:05

Thank you for sharing this CIN, and thank you very much for bringing this up in your class! Excellent point!

Paul K. Chappell12-07-2011   14:53

Thank you for your comment Wintergreen, and it is great to hear from you again! I appreciate your update about The Great Renewal, and thank you for your e-mail. I hope that you will be able to attend the workshop this summer, and please stay well!

Gloria Fortier04-09-2012   12:45

I have to agree with the comment that GOOD INTENTIONS ARE NOT ENOUGH..  i just saw a photograph of an oldtimer who is sitting outside his place with a bottle of moonshine a shot gun and a six shooter.. he aims to protect his place and keep his peace of mind.. it takes what it takes to create a community that serves the community.  Now adays the community serves the rich and taxes the poor.  I would love to see a shift in the monetary divide so that the rich serve the community and the poor get the help they need.  Its the mentality that the all mighty dollar is what is at the crux of most arguements on the political front.  I believe what the OCCUPY movement believes.. its not the good intentions that will work.. but .. peaceful resistence to the norm.. The norm needs to shift to a place where there isnt such a devide between the rich and the poor.

Jeff Chastain06-25-2012   06:25

Mr. Chappell, 

Yesterday, I saw a lecture you had given on Book TV.  

A bit about me, I am a pro-second amendment, gun clinging, God fearing conservative.  Although not an official member of the Tea Party (if there is such a thing).  I believe in many of their ideas.  I view Ronald Reagan as a bit to liberal for my tastes.

That said, I enjoyed your lecture.  I have just purchased your books and have been reading your blogs.  Although, we may disagree in the traditional political sense.  I believe  in the truths you have stated.  I do not want my country to fly drones over my head.  I do not want my country to data mine my bank statement, emails, and cell phone logs.  Tyranny by an oligharcist banking industry is just as oppressive as tyranny by an oppressive government. 

As I look at the upcoming "Historic" Presidential Election (this makes the fourth Historic election I have voted in) I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that things will not change if we keep doing what we have been doing.  Our Presidents have ranged from Hollywood Actors, to CIA Operatives, to Community Organizers and...nothing has changed.  Congress has swung from a conservative contract with America to a Fillibuster Proof democratic majority and...nothing has changed.  

The only hope this country has is for me to not view the occopy movement as dirty granola crunching hippies and them to not view me as bubba the redneck.  Only when we can view each other as intelligent and competent can we have the discussions that generate the ideas to finally solve the problems this nation/world has.

Barb Mallin06-25-2012   15:29

I want to congratulate Jeff Chastain on his comment regarding your article, Paul.  He confirms my belief that you speak to human beings, not democrats, republicans, or any other labeled group.  Like some of my family members who do not see eye to eye with me politically and yet value your writings as much as I do, Jeff hears your message of  non-violence.  Hopefully a lot of others are also listening because your words give me hope that peace does have a chance in this country.  Jeff is looking for a change in our government, and so am I.  Thank you for helping me believe that change is possible.

Paul K. Chappell06-30-2012   17:58

Hello Jeff, thank you very much for sharing your thoughtful insights brother, and I greatly appreciated reading your comment. If we find the common ground that you eloquently described, we can work together to improve the health and safety of our democracy. You are a sign of hope! Thank you for your commitment to the democratic ideals and a brighter future, and please stay in touch!

Respectfully,

Paul

© Nuclear Age Peace Foundation