Gandhi was successful for a short time. Peaceful means without a strong army to back it up is a danger. Within about 150 years the Islamic forces conquered the whole of Arabia, North Africa, Turkey, all the way down to India.

The system of Islam, its ldeology, mosques, madrassahs and violent killing of non-Muslims are the greatest threat to world peace. With oil- money from the rich Muslim states, they are trying to spread their violent ideology all over the world.

We can follow the peaceful means of Gandhi in that we don't buy from any Muslim shops, eat their food, and having nothing to do with Islamic businesses and companies. The mistake Gandhi made was to treat Muslim as brothers and were 'eaten up' by them as can be seen in the riots between followers of Islam and non-Muslims.

Gandhi was only successful because he was opposing the British. If he had been opposing Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan or Mohammed, I think the outcome would have been quite different.

As far as I know, Gandhi had little to say about the major problem of today - which is not Global Warming, which is only a symptom, but overpopulation. I cannot see how his approach would have any effect in this case.

I agree with most of the sentiments in this article.

Gandhi provided the symbolic link to allow, as the Author states, the raising of "the moral conscience of the British people". The "Truth" of the system was revealed. The difference in the early 21st century is that the colonisation achieved by the new capitalist empires entices a local population to covet "our" values and lifestyle through marketing and advertising, creating needs and wants that attempt to transform locals and encourage the embrace of, some would argue, the worst aspects of our system. The truth these days, is harder to get at.

In Gandhi's time the marketing and advertising industries were in comparative infancy to today. I wasn't around then but I would guess the notion of economic rationalism was unheard of. The point is, ideas about capitalism (reinforced as the system that won the cold war), economic rationalism and such are so ingrained in our modern western consciousness that many people believe following these principles IS the way forward.

A "Gandhi-esque" attempt to raise our consciousness now may meet a more distainful reaction at home, encouraged by industry and interest groups, indeed entire consumer economies, that depend on this system for their survival.

Unfortunately, given the underwhelming reactions to alternative ideas or critiques of the current system and the perceived overall superiority of it (by governments and disinterested populations), negative environmental consequences look like the main possible catalyst for change. Wars and terrorist attacks (rightly or wrongly) can be explained by other means than blaming our way of life - perversly, defending selected components of our "way of life" were used as justification for war only recently.

It may well be that we are only able to change direction when some environmental catastrophe driven by our system affects us so directly that we are finally shaken from these beliefs and are forced to reassess our values and seriously contemplate alternatives to the unfettered free markets of global neo-capitalism that are currently promoted so heavily.

The West needs Jesus Christ.
The West needs a return, for many many folks, to their christian roots.
A return to Gods Word and christian fellowship.
Thats what will save the West.
Lots of solid prayer against terrorism, inflation, collapsing governments and the great growth of asian armies.

What a nice article. I am sure everyone feels nicer for reading it and approving its nice sentiments.

Nice people will understand.

NEXT!

Hmm

I agree with much of the first half of this article, in particular about the value and surprising efficacy of non-violence in highlighting and overcoming oppression and moral blindness. The moral force of non-violent protest was a key factor in the defeat of imperialism in India, racial segregation in the USA, apartheid in South Africa, military despotism in Chile, the Marcos regime in the Philippines, and Marxist regimes in the former Soviet Union and its empire. In contrast, utopian political revolutions grounded in violence often prove short lived or produce governments worse, or little better than, the ones they replace – in Vietnam, Russia, China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Albania etc

But the second half degenerates into an anti-capitalist rant that is long on rhetoric and devoid of facts. “The economic system that dominates the globe in the interests of a wealthy minority” with “leaders in the pockets of corporate giants” has in fact raised more people from abject poverty than any other economic system in history.

Such ideological stereotyping is hardly like to inspire the thoughtful self-criticism which the article calls on the west and its leaders to employ.

Ghandi’s India, which for decades languished in abject poverty and periodic famine, is today emerging as a global economic powerhouse thanks to economic reforms that are integrating it into the global economic system. Millions are emerging from poverty as a result.

Much though I admire him, Gandhi was not perfect. One of his political weaknesses was his anti-modernism and romanticising and glorification of poverty and the peasant society, which arguably contributed to the policies of India’s post-war governments that were so effective in keeping Indians poor for so long. As Christopher Hitchens says: “millions of people would have starved to death if [Gandhi’s] advice had been followed”.