Facebook bans Gandhi quote as part of revisionist history purge


Facebook bans Gandhi quote as part of revisionist history purge
Here is the full image as originally posted on Facebook. Keep in mind that THIS is now considered unacceptable speech across the “Facebook community,” where any number of people can openly call for the murder of the NRA president and have absolutely no action taken against them:

The era of total oppression and collectivist mind control has fully arrived in America. This is not hyperbole… IT IS HERE NOW.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038484_Ga…#ixzz2GY3YcnWW

could it have been the size of the word BLACKEST??


1.) Has anyone verified the claim that FB has banned this graphic?

2.) Has anyone verified the quote attributed to Gandhi?

I’m not implying anything more or less than being careful, not going into full outrage mode absent some basic verification. I’ve seen agenda-driven nonsense snare more than a few otherwise reasonable people. FWIW, I searched Snopes for “facebook gandhi” and “gandhi arms”. Both searches returned no results. That isn’t conclusive of anything, but does indicate that the Facebook story and Gandhi quote are not long-time well-known phonies.


The quote is real, from his autobiography: Source (bottom of page 446, talking about leaflets)


The quote is real but somewhat out of context


Oh those nutty right wing conspiracy loons, gotta love em’.


Leaving aside the FaceBook action, this quote is being misrepresented by those opposed to gun control. Gandiis referring, during WW2, to the refusal of the British to have an Indian military at a time when it seemed that Germany might win on the western front in Europe, leaving India defenseless. He was not referring to any individual right bear firearms. If you must transpose this quote into the current US context, he would be referring to arming a national military force (an army) or arguably an organized governmental militia, but not any individual right to bear arms.

Also, this was before he adopted his position and strategy of aggressive non-violent resistance.


Trekky, thanks for the link. The context is curious (and Trekky’s link doesn’t include the next page), but the graphic NaturalNews says FB banned does not seem to misrepresent what Gandhi said. Not sure about the NaturalNews article’s claim, though. Quoting from the article:

InfoWars.com is also now reporting that Facebook is running an across-the-board PURGE of pro-gun accounts. A huge number of accounts are all being systematically disabled or suspended, with all content being wiped clean.

There’s a problem with that claim. Here is the FB page for the NRA, and here is the FB page for Gun Owners of America. Hello! If FB is doing a “across-the-board PURGE of pro-gun accounts” why are the NRA and GOA pages available (both showing posts or updates within the past 8 hours)?


Well, I found another source for Gandhi’s Autobiography. Here is the relevant chapter. The context is that Gandhi was endeavoring to recruit Indians to serve to defend India during WW2, and was meeting with reluctance, due to the manner in which the British had ruled India. Here is the full paragraph from which the graphic above quotes:

I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: ‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.’ The Commissioner referred to this and said that he appreciated my presence in the conference in spite of the differences between us. And I had to justify my standpoint as courteously as I could.

While it is referring in the immediate sense to military service, his reasoning is not unlike that of the US Second Amendment: permitting private ownership of firearms results in a body of people people familiar with firearms who consequently need less training. Because the Indian people were forbidden to own firearms their military training with firearms started from scratch. His argument was that widespread faithful military service could result in the gun ban being lifted.


I posted on Facebook a link to a quote from George Washington about an armed citizenry, and was rewarded with 3 snarky comments from my very liberal sister-in-law - and 3 “likes”, two from a couple of our internet friends (who both have membership here) and the other from my granddaughter. I usually try to keep away from politics on Facebook, and I don’t usually do shares, but I did several in the last couple of days that I felt were just too good to pass up.

Anyway, concerning my sil’s posts - I refused to feed the troll.


I think FB is a waste of time. I joined about a year ago and I still don’t understand how to use it. And, it seems like FB is not the place for being honest if you’re a conservative.


I’m not a fan of social networking sites, and here’s why:

They are perfect nests for malware, and also are not very “privacy” attentive. Since the majority of the social networking people are novices (hold on geeks, I’m not saying you’re not there), and NOT security conscious or savvy, it’s an ideal breeding ground for the spread of malware (“click on this link, it’s kool”).

People hear from their friends, “If you’re not on Facebook, you’re missing out on a kool way to connect with your friends/family and keep up to date with the latest news and info about them and also other sites. It’s way better than email!” (Or the stubby pencil method of snail mail . . . writing a longhand personal letter is just about a lost art. For example, what quality of “history” would we have if Winston Churchill or Thomas Jefferson had not written longhand letters to friends and family? It would be pretty sterile without the insight of their writings.)

So, people go out and buy a computer, take it out of the box, plug it in, and immediately go to FB (I’m exaggerating some, but you get the point.) These people have little or no concept of even basic best security practices or privacy concerns . . . an ideal place for purveyors of spam lists and writers of malware to thrive. Security best practices are an annoyance to these novices and are viewed as nothing more than a bother that slows them down and dilutes the “experience” . . . creating a profitable playground for malware writers. Malware writers and the criminal rings they represent get the biggest bang for their buck on these social networking sites.

All that said, there are some individuals on FB and brethren that ARE aware of security, and there ARE ways to participate safely and protect your privacy. But that requires some caution, and as I said, this is seen as a bother and an annoyance by the unwashed masses and something not necessary. FB encourages that attitude by giving a false sense of security . . . more like the Fox guarding the Chickens.

I’m not saying these things are necessarily unsafe, but they ARE if you don’t implement at least some basic security best practices. Geeks, student-Geeks, or just plain security savvy individuals CAN participate, but I think they are in the minority and swimming with novices that attract sharks.

Social networking can be fun and can be productive (not for me though), but you’ve GOT to be security and privacy conscious.


Facebook is about as secure as 900+ FBI files in the hands of Hillary Clinton.


[quote=“2cent, post:12, topic:37643”]
Facebook is about as secure as 900+ FBI files in the hands of Hillary Clinton.
[/quote]Well put!


I don’t have the honesty-as-conservative issue, as most of my FB friends are conservative (I did lose one British friend recently on a left v. right issue recently; it was shortly after the Newtown shooting, and he posted a couple of anti-gun images (one from HCI); I responded directly but politely, and the next thing I knew, I wasn’t seeing any of his posts anymore, including the ones I’d commented on).

I do wish that FB would stop “fixing” what ain’t broke (and actually DO fix some things that are). But as someone who can’t get out much, FB has added a good deal to my social interaction, and I like that, if not all that goes with it.

As far as privacy and related security issues, I treat FB as a gossip monger and don’t post anything that I distinctly don’t want read beyond my influence of control. As to the malware, would you say that is more likely to be an issue of the FB aps, or would you say the site itself is riddled with it? We have a script blocker and an ad blocker, although I realize that these things aren’t 100%.


Just for grins I posted the offending picture on my Facebook page. Let’s see what happens!


I only have two non-conservative “friends” on facebook. I try, for the most part, to avoid politics there, anyway. I did mention a couple times about my liberal sil; the other is a friend from high school. Funny, we were good friends in high school, yet at the time (although we never got into politics), we had relatively little in common.


How is it, then, that we hear more and more about people being punished for making stupid comments on FB? How do those comments get to the general public and into the hands of those who decide that freedom of speech does not apply to FB?


FB is a microcosm if life. You get idiots, crooks, leeches, and fine upstanding people. You can unfriend who you want and friend who you want. It comes down to how you manage your personal FB account. As for editing out certain things, I would have to see what was there to begin with, I sincerely doubt FB moderators would edit what i am hearing here.


I guess my question was more about the recent news of certain people making comments that somehow offended someone and either lost their job because of it or was punished some other way. It seems to me that big brother is ever watching…


CT, understand something, FB like any social media puts you out there for anybody to see. It is up to you how you control your viewership. There is a great site I am involved with called Refugees in Jesus, very limited and controlled membership, but one of the most loving groups out there. At the same time there are very dark groups. As long as you use the controls provided, you are safe.