Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding.
A non-violent revolution is not a program of seizure of power. It is a program of transformation of relationships, ending in a peaceful transfer of power.
Revolution does have to be violent precisely because the Pharaoh won't let you go. If the Pharaoh would let you go, the revolution won't have to be violent.
All destruction, by violent revolution or however it be, is but new creation on a wider scale.
I’ve chosen not to challenge the rule of law, because in our system there really is no intermediate step between a Supreme Court decision and violent revolution. When the Supreme Court makes a decision, no matter how strongly one disagrees with it, one faces a choice –are we, in John Adams’ phrase, a nation of laws, or is it a contest made on raw power?
There is a desire for progress in the hearts of all men, and it is the sense of frustration and inability to move forward that brings violent revolution.
I am against war, against violence, against violent revolution, for peaceful settlement of differences, for nonviolent but nevertheless radical changes. Change is needed, and violence will not really change anything: at most it will only transfer power from one set of bull-headed authorities to another.
We decry violence all the time in this country, but look at our history. We were born in a violent revolution, and we've been in wars ever since. We're not a pacific people.
The ones who close the path for peacefull revolution, at the same time open the path for violent revolution.
Whatever else it is, the kingdom of God is decidedly not a call to violent revolution.
I think it does work. The fact that the law is there and injustices can be rectified, I think has a lot to do with the fact that the people in this country aren't as frustrated as they are in some of these places in Eastern Europe and don't resort to violent revolution.
I'm not for real revolutions, because they always bring you the opposite of what you want. You very seldom get what you want if you have a violent revolution.
Violent revolutions usually only mean a change of personnel at the top.
I have always loved the Mao cap, though I hate violent revolution.
Individuals who are really inspirational are always what changes history. Gandhi had a bunch of good ideas, and he led a non - violent revolution that transformed India.
I think acceptance of human rights is going to progress from one day to the next. I don't think there's going to be any violent revolution about the whole thing anywhere. Of course, it looks like it every once in a while. You hear about it on television and in newspapers: riots here and there. But that is a passing phase.
Sometimes it just amazes me how many people desperately want to protect my personal information. Ten thousand reflections hide the true gem. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
The most violent revolutions in an individuals beliefs leave most of his old order standing. Time and space, cause and effect, nature and history, and ones own biography remain untouched. New truth is always a go-between, a smoother-over of transitions. It marries old opinion to new fact so as ever to show a minimum of jolt, a maximum of continuity.
The suppression of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without violent revolution.
or simply:
