End the War on Freedom

Thank you for a very thought provoking essay.

I would be the last to advocate against armed self defense in the face of armed assailants. Of course, I would prefer a pump shotgun to a pistol any day. History shows that a whole squad of door kickers can be repelled with one. The shotgun was outlawed for use in warfare by the Geneva Conventions because of the horror stories of what happens when a man with a shotgun jumps down into an enemy trench.

But as a political force, armed resistance has very limited applications. Guerrilla warfare, unless very widely supported by the populace and backed by strong foreign assistance, can not eject an army of occupation or overthrow an entrenched tyrannical government. And in these cases, the net result of a nominal victory is "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Replacing one gang of killers with another, under the watchful eye and steady hand of foreign "friends", is a recipe for more tyranny, not less.

Unarmed resistance, which today is often called "strategic nonviolent conflict", is a proven model that works if the resistance has strong popular support. The Solidarity movement in Poland, the "People Power revolution" in the Philippines, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine are recent historical examples. This method of revolution is not a cure all. Sometimes all it can achieve is to deny a Fascist regime or occupying power the use of productive resources, and stop efforts to indoctrinate the populace to comply with illegitimate authority. But once these goals have been accomplished, the resistance is more than halfway to victory.

Strategic nonviolent conflict aims at uniting as much of the public as possible around simple core values with a broad base of consensus support. The first battle is to take and hold the moral high ground, drawing the endorsement and support of groups including churches, trade unions, pro-democracy political parties, fraternal organizations, etc. These become the communications networks and leadership pools of the resistance. In tandem with public statements, training programs, and rules of engagement that promote the moral authority of the resistance, the enemy's moral bankruptcy is publicized and highlighted through specific tactical programs.

Conditions on the ground determine which methods to use for attacking the public image and personal morale of occupiers and/or collaborators, which include propaganda and recruitment efforts aimed at publicly rehabilitating collaborators who renounce allegiance to the oppressor. Acts of carefully targeted sabotage, publicity stunts, mass demonstrations, occupation and paralysis of the seats of government and finance, etc., all get best results without the use of armed force by the resistance, and as long as the posture of nonviolent force is maintained, every atrocity against the resistance brings waves of recruits on board. What an occupying army's propaganda apparatus calls "civilian human shields", may in fact be committed front line resistance fighters. Never underestimate the power of a grandmother with few years to live, fighting for her family's future way of life.

Armed resistance plays directly into the oppressor's hand, by enabling him to easily cast the resistance in criminal and terrorist roles, and by reinforcing the "us versus them" mentality of the minority who actively support the oppressor's agenda. In genuine a home defense situation, deadly force may be the best option. But in a political struggle to establish rule of law under democratic institutions powered by the affirmative mandate of the electorate, deadly force is rarely appropriate. Mobilizing the people to withdraw consent and cooperation from an occupying power or illegitimate government, presenting no hard targets to the oppressor, simply works better.

An irregular militia may be of great value to an advancing armed force bent on their "liberation", but without foreign backing, an irregular miitia is a losing force that brings more harm than good to the community. Of course, historical counter-examples do exist: The Zapatistas in the Chiapas region, for instance, succeeded because the will of their opponent was weak, and because they were a "well regulated militia" under the command of traditional tribal councils. They successfully defended their human, civil, and constitutional rights - but without overthrowing the Mexican government or attacking political targets with military force. Their success was largely due to international pressure aroused by information warfare on the then-new Internet.

Study of strategic nonviolent conflict corrects the military propaganda lie that Pacifism is weakness. The contrary is true: Pacifism is immensely strong, and rightly feared by the enemies of freedom and popular self determination. The vast majority of committed Pacifists are NOT vegans who believe in Buddhist ahimsa or have "moral objections" to physical self defense, legitimate police work, etc. Pacifists believe in the use of force in every form except politically motivated violence, to secure the fundamental human rights of their communities. Pacifism takes courage, common sense, and a passionate drive to obtain a better future for oneself and one's children: The people of the United States possess these qualities in abundance, but under the enforced ignorance of public education and centrally planned news media, most do not know how to use these qualities to get positive results. This problem can be corrected. A thorough grounding in strategic nonviolent conflict will increase any Nation's resistance to Fascism, and any resistance group's combat effectiveness, by orders of magnitude. This holds true whether or not armed conflict is considered a legitimate tactical option.

A starting point:

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations1fda.html

Thanks for listening...