Working Like A Dog

Those who follow this blog will have noticed that I was unable to write a post for last weekend.  The title of today's post explains why.  I suddenly find my occupational skills to be in very high demand - which is a good thing as it helps me to buy groceries!  However, I will try to have a post for this coming weekend.  In the meantime, here is a link to a fascinating article exposing the actual basis of the 2020 profits of the Tesla corporation.  The linked source, along with others, points out that Elon Musk's company has been unable to this day to be profitable on its own by selling its own cars.  The only thing that has helped the company post profits recently is the selling of carbon credits.  This is interesting, because Musk has built a PR campaign over the last year to portray himself as a smart, cutting-edge businessman and intellectual.  (See this also.)  Beware of celebrity culture; you know the old warning about all that glitters...

Link - Arab Tyrant Manual podcast with Jamila Raqib

Here is a link to a podcast interview of Jamila Raqib of the Albert Einstein Institution.  Jamila is the executive director of the Institution, which was originally founded by Dr. Gene Sharp to study the development and application of strategic nonviolent resistance.  The interview was conducted by Iyad El-Baghdadi and Ahmed Gatnash of the Kawaakibi Foundation, an organization which describes itself thus:

Kawaakibi Foundation is an accelerator for thinkers and doers, with a focus on the future of liberty in Muslim communities and in the Arab world. Our work causes headaches and sleepless nights for tyrants and terrorists.

We envision a world free from tyranny, terrorism, and foreign intervention; one in which society trumps the state, extremism and illiberalism have no appeal, and individual rights are sacrosanct.

The Kawaakibi Foundation is also very active in training movement organizers in effective nonviolent change.  To quote them again,

We don't do traditional activism - our projects are innovative and radical. We develop cutting-edge research and apply new methodologies and a rigorous theory of change to the root causes of problems. That's why our small team have caused headaches to the world's worst tyrants.

Their Arab Tyrant Manual is an initiative designed to fight the spread of illiberal and authoritarian regimes throughout the Arab world.   

The interview with Jamila covers ground that will be familiar to long-time students of strategic nonviolent resistance.  But it breaks some new ground as well in discussing how a successful nonviolent movement depends less on changing the heart of the oppressor and more on changing the hearts of the oppressed so that they begin to discover their own power.  The podcast also discusses questions of how to carry on the legacy of Dr. Gene Sharp.  Enjoy!

From D to D, Chapter 6 (Continued): Grand Strategy

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery

None but ourselves can free our minds

Have no fear for atomic energy

'Cause none of them can stop the time

How long shall they kill our prophets,

while we stand aside and look?

Some say it's just a part of it, 

We've got to fulfill the book ...

Won't you help to sing

These songs of freedom?

'Cause all I ever have:

Redemption songs

Redemption songs

- Bob Marley, Redemption Song

This post is a continuation of my "study guide" and commentary on the book From Dictatorship to Democracy by Dr. Gene Sharp. In this series of posts, I have shortened the title of the book to From D to D. As I have said in previous posts, the consideration of this book is highly relevant for these times, in which those who support the supremacy of the world's dominant peoples have created a world in which a select few get to Make Themselves Great by exploiting everyone else. The poor of the earth experience this exploitation as enslavement, discrimination, harassment, dispossession, and the threat of genocide. Many live as refugees. Theirs is an experience of apparent utter powerlessness in the face of an all-consuming, murderously abusive power.  Yet the poor of the earth do have at their disposal a "weapons system" and a strategic method which holds the promise to liberate them from their oppression if they dare to use it.  That means of liberation is strategic nonviolent resistance.

A key word in the phrase "strategic nonviolent resistance" is the word "strategic."  The success of this kind of resistance therefore depends heavily on the formulation of a wise collective strategy of liberation by the oppressed group.  What then makes for good strategy?  In Chapters 6 and 7 of From D to D, Gene Sharp seeks to answer this question.  In Chapter 6 therefore, Sharp starts by laying out the skeleton of strategic planning.  To do this, he defines the following four terms: grand strategy, strategy, tactic, and method.  Today's post will discuss what is meant by grand strategy.

What then is grand strategy?  In Chapter 6 of From D to D, Sharp defines it thus: 

Grand strategy is the conception that serves to coordinate and direct the use of all appropriate and available resources (economic, human, moral, political, organizational, etc.) of a group seeking to attain its objectives in a conflict.  Grand strategy, by focusing primary attention on the group’s objectives and resources in the conflict, determines the most appropriate technique of action (such as conventional military warfare or nonviolent struggle) to be employed in the conflict. In planning a grand strategy resistance leaders must evaluate and plan which pressures and influences are to be brought to bear upon the opponents.  Further, grand strategy will include decisions on the appropriate conditions and timing under which initial and subsequent resistance campaigns will be launched.

This definition draws heavily from the definition contained in B.H. Liddell-Hart's book The Strategy of Indirect Approach, in which Liddell-Hart says that

As tactics is an application of strategy on a lower plane, so strategy is an application on a lower plane of 'grand strategy'. If practically synonymous with the policy which governs the conduct of war, as distinct from the permanent policy which formulates its object, the term 'grand strategy' serves to bring out the sense of 'policy in execution'. For the role of grand strategy is to co-ordinate and direct all the resources of a nation towards the attainment of the political object of the war - the goal defined by national policy.

These definitions serve to describe what grand strategy does; yet they may seem to fall short of describing what it actually is.  Liddell-Hart comes closer to the mark in saying that grand strategy is simply a higher plane of strategy in general.  And he offers a very concise definition of strategy as "the art of distributing military means to fulfill the ends of policy."

Since Liddell-Hart, others within the realms of governments have tried to create a concise and stable definition of "grand strategy."  Among these are Dr. Tami Davis Biddle, who quotes John Lewis Gaddis in describing grand strategy as “the calculated relationship of means to large ends. It’s about how one uses whatever one has to get to wherever it is one wants to go.”  Timothy Andrew Sayle quotes Jeremi Suri in writing that "grand strategy is the wisdom to make power serve useful purposes."  Peter Layton says that "Grand strategy is the art of developing and applying diverse forms of power in an effective and efficient way to try to purposefully change the relationship existing between two or more intelligent and adaptive entities."  Andrew Monaghan wrote that grand strategy is the art of “using all of the nation’s resources to promote the interests of the state, including securing it against enemies perceived and real.”

From these and other sources, we can conclude therefore that grand strategy is the art of arranging all the resources of a state or polity in order to achieve its goals.  (That's the TH in SoC definition!) Therefore, the ultimate goals of a nation direct its grand strategy.  And while sometimes those goals are rationally chosen and planned, it is also true that often the goals of a nation are an emergent product of the nation's culture, and thus not always consciously obvious even to the nation's leaders, as pointed out by Sayle, who provides the following quote from Edward Luttwak:

All states have a grand strategy, whether they know it or not. That is inevitable because grand strategy is simply the level at which knowledge and persuasion, or in modern terms intelligence and diplomacy, interact with military strength to determine outcomes in a world of other states with their own “grand strategies.

Here's the thing.  The only polities that can get away without an explicit, consciously planned grand strategy are those centers of empire that are at the height of their power.  And they can get away with this only for so long before there are consequences.  Most of the world's oppressed peoples are those whose oppression is a consequence of their own lack of a grand strategy.  If you don't make good plans for yourself and your people, be sure that other people - most of whom are very powerful and not very nice - will make plans for you.  Often those plans will involve things like roasting you over a slow fire and sticking you between two pieces of bread.

Careful readers will note that I pulled most of the definitions of grand strategy quoted above from thinkers and writers who are paid by governments to think and write.  And the relationship between governments of nations and grand strategy is that these governments usually employ people whose job in life is to carefully document the state's resources, both military and otherwise.  These record-keepers include census workers, tax collectors, and paid researchers.  A second characteristic of this relationship is that strong governments are usually able during emergencies to use their authority (backed by State force) to compel their citizens to give their resources for the support of the nation's grand strategy.  How does this compare to members of an oppressed people who are planning the nonviolent liberation of their people?

The first difference to note is that often those who are activized to start organizing their people won't have access to some detailed, nicely curated database of their people's resources, capabilities and weaknesses.  Nor will they have the wherewithal to create such a database - at least, not at first.  Therefore their knowledge of their people and of their collective situation will have to be gained during a long period of observation, of meeting people, of listening to their stories, of asking questions.  In other words, developing a grand strategy may well have to start with an extensive fact-finding phase.  Nor can this fact-finding be limited solely to learning about one's own people.  One must also learn to identify the strengths, weaknesses and resources of one's allies, potential competitors, and opponents.

There is a second difference between grand strategy as applied by a national government and grand strategy as applied by the organizers of a liberation struggle among an oppressed people.  That difference is that unlike the heads of a state, the organizers of a nonviolent liberation struggle can't compel or force people to give themselves and their resources to the organizers in order to fulfill the grand strategy of the organizers.  These leaders and organizers can't create draft boards to seize young men and put them into the organizers' services.  They can't condemn real estate or use eminent domain or levy taxes to seize the assets of their brothers and sisters.  Instead, they must ask and persuade; they must accept that resources will only be given voluntarily.  The question for the organizers then becomes how to persuade this voluntary giving.  This difficulty is real, yet not often as obvious as it should be to people like Derek Sivers who talk of movement-building as if it was as easy as a shirtless dancing guy on a beach getting everyone else on the beach to start dancing.

I therefore suggest that a process of creating a grand strategy of liberation for an oppressed people begins with crafting a "vision of tomorrow" - that is, by setting before one's people a concrete description of where we should all want to go and how we will try to get there.  Some necessary aspects of this vision of tomorrow:

• First, it must be a high-level description which lays out general goals and methods, and does not descend too deeply into specifics (avoiding "getting down into the weeds", as they say).  As Guy Kawasaki says, a mission statement with a couple of dozen points is very unwieldy!
• Second, it must be open to revision at first as the organizers engage in dialogue with the people whom they seek to organize.  For instance, the organizer may discover during the listening and asking questions phase of his or her work that there are things that are very important to the people being organized which were missed by the organizer in the first conception of the vision of tomorrow.
• Third, the vision of tomorrow must serve to motivate people to give of themselves and their resources to a cause which involves their entire people and not just the wishes of the organizers.

A few weeks ago I sketched out my own tentative version of a "Vision of Tomorrow" for the African-American people.  Here it is:

The goal: To organize the African-American people into a people who are:

• Self-sufficient, both individually and collectively (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12);
• Fully equipped to fulfill our ontogeny;
• Expert in producing beautifully good work to meet necessary needs (Titus 3:14);
• A people who can no longer be oppressed.

How we will get there: 

• We will organize our own mutual aid networks.  (A potluck, NOT a free lunch!)
• We will organize our own education.
• We will organize our own training to create experts in community organizing and strategic nonviolent resistance.
• We will begin to use our collective power strategically to deny our oppressors any payoff from their oppression.

This is what I intend to work for and how I intend to spend my time when I engage in organizing.  But it's only a start.  In order to get buy-in for this sort of vision, I need to hear what my brothers and sisters think about it and how and where they think it should be changed.  It may also need to be shortened and condensed to make it more punchy and memorable.

I will close by suggesting that readers study some of the more well-known successful nonviolent liberation struggles in recent history to see how grand strategy was conceived and evolved, and who did the strategizing.  Particularly, how did Gandhi do it?  Or how about the Reverend James Lawson or OTPOR! or Solidarnosc?  How did these craft a compelling "Vision of Tomorrow"?

A SUGGESTED READING LIST

• "Defining and Teaching Grand Strategy - Foreign Policy Research Institute", Timothy Andrews Sayle
• "Defining Grand Strategy," Peter Layton
• "Grand Strategy," Wikipedia
• "It Was Grand, But Was it Strategy? Revisiting the Origins Story of Grand Strategy", David Morgan-Owen
• "Strategy and Grand Strategy: What Students and Practitioners Need to Know", Tami Davis Biddle
• "What Is Grand Strategy? Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield", Rebecca Friedman Lissner

Солнечный свет

Sunshine go away today

I don't feel much like dancin'

Some man's gone, he's tried to run my life

He don't know what he's askin'

When he tells me I better get in line

I can't hear what he's sayin'

When I grow up I'm gonna make it mine

These ain't dues I been payin'...

- from Sunshine by Jonathan Edwards (a 1971 blast from the past!)

I am still busy with the kind of work that pays bills, so I will have to postpone the continuation of my posts on the book From Dictatorship to Democracy (shortened in these posts to From D to D) by Gene Sharp.  But I want to comment today on something I came across while researching the material for my most recent post in the From D to D series.  

That post drew from a book by Basil Henry Liddell-Hart titled, The Strategy of Indirect Approach.  That book was inspired by Liddell-Hart's experiences in World War 1, both as a combatant and and an observer.  And because this book was written in the 1940's, Liddell-Hart reserved the last chapter for a commentary on the opening events of World War 2.  That chapter is appropriately titled, "Hitler's Strategy."  Liddell-Hart holds up Adolf Hitler as an outstanding example of the power of the indirect approach to warfare, saying that "The peaceful Powers have suffered a lot from 'missing the bus' through their slowness to gauge what he [that is, Hitler] would attempt next."

Liddell-Hart comments that this "missing of the bus" is a strange thing given the fact that before his ascent to power, Hitler spelled out exactly both the general strategy and the specific methods by which he would attempt world domination.  Through his autobiographical Mein Kampf and his public speeches, Hitler laid all his cards on the table.  Of particular note is the fact that Hitler sought to disarm and disintegrate his opponents as much as possible through means that did not involve actual war, so that when the time for arms actually came, a military victory could be achieved with the least possible cost.  To quote Hitler, "People have killed only when they could not achieve their aim in other ways ... There is a broadened strategy with intellectual weapons ... Our strategy is to destroy the enemy from within, to conquer him through himself."

A key method of destroying enemies from within consists of understanding and playing on the weaknesses of the great men of the nation one seeks to conquer.  Liddell-Hart therefore described how Hitler used this method to destroy the Weimar Republic in order to install himself as the supreme leader of Germany and the Nazi Party as the sole political instrument of Germany.  But what is more disturbing is how Hitler then used the same methods to undermine the other nations of Europe.  Among the things done to implement this strategy are the following:

• Support of the emerging fascist government of Italy
• Support of General Franco's successful overthrow of the Spanish government
• A series of relatively bloodless military victories against militarily inferior neighbors.  These military moves were made under the pretext of answering the call for help made by supposedly oppressed German minorities and sympathetic partisans in these countries.
• From page 306 of Liddell-Hart: "To prepare the way for his offensive, he [Hitler] sought to find influential adherents in the other country who would undermine its resistance, make trouble in his interest, and be ready to form a new government compliant to his aims.  Bribery was unnecessary - he counted on self-seeking ambition, authoritarian inclination, and party-spirit to provide him with willing and unwitting agents among the ruling classes." (Emphasis added.)

It is this last point which I want to emphasize.  When the members of a polity are decent, moral people, this moral and ethical purity is a source of strength even if the polity may be militarily weak.  But when there are members of the polity who seek to make themselves great by trashing their fellow human beings, they expose themselves to the possibility of being trashed in turn by a power greater and more skillful than themselves.  That power is itself a power of darkness, and it finds an open door of assault when the darkness within it calls out to the darkness of the great men of the polity - and finds a ready answer.  (This, for instance, is how Hitler almost destroyed Josef Stalin.)

So it is that the darkness within Vladimir Putin and Aleksandr Dugin has called out to many of the great men of the West and has found a ready answer.  For the strategy and the strategic moves of Putin's Russia have been in many ways an almost exact mirror of the opening moves made by Adolf Hitler over 80 years ago.  I would like to suggest that among Putin's most "willing and unwitting agents" are many members of the Republican Party, the white American Evangelical/Protestant church (see this also), and the media empire of Rupert Murdoch.

In mentioning Putin's close relationship with many of the leaders of the white American evangelical/Protestant church, I want to be clear that I do not believe for a moment that Putin is actually a Christian.  Nor do I believe he has any noble spiritual motives.  But I do believe that Putin, like Hitler before him, is an embodiment of the kind of global hegemon which the world will see in the perhaps not-too-distant future, a ruler described thus: 

And in his place a despicable person will arise, on whom the honor of kingship has not been conferred, but he will come in a time of tranquility and seize the kingdom by intrigue...And after an alliance is made with him he will practice deception, and he will go up and gain power with a small people... (Daniel 11:21, 23; see also Daniel 8:23-25)

Could Putin then be "da man"?  может быть; кто знаете?

P.S. If you want to read more of my posts on Russia, the following are a good place to start:

• The Revanchism of the Third Rome (Part 1)
• The Revanchism of the Third Rome (Part 2): The Role of Russian Orthodoxy
• The Revanchism of the Third Rome: Symphony's Chords
• The Revanchism Of The Third Rome, Part 4: Caesar's 21st Century
• The Black Hole At The Imperial Center
• No Strangers to Самовлюбленность
• The Tearing of the Fig Leaf Dress

φρόνιμος καί ἀκέραιος

This week I find myself very busy with the kind of work that pays the bills, so I decided yesterday to postpone the next post in my series of posts on Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy.  Writing those posts involves a fairly heavy amount of research, and while I do not mind the research (indeed, it is what makes for good posts!), I am crunched for time at least this week, and possibly next week as well.

However, I did find today an unexpected source of both inspiration and instruction to those who seek nonviolently to spread disruptive, yet righteous change in the midst of a dangerous environment.  As I was reading the Gospel of Matthew, I came across the following verse: "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore become shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.  But beware of men..."  Two words caught my notice.  The first was the word translated "shrewd", which in the Greek is the word φρόνιμος (pronounced "phronimos").  It can be rendered as "shrewd," "having presence of mind," "sagacious," "sensible," "prudent," "practically wise," "showing discernment," or "in one's right mind."  The second word is ἀκέραιος (pronounced "akeraios"), which can be rendered "pure," "unmixed," "uncontaminated," or "guileless."  In my Bible it is translated as "innocent", but I like the other renderings better.

These two qualities are an interesting mix for those nonviolent change agents who operate in a threat environment.  On the one hand, they are to be pure, unmixed, guileless - that is, they are to be truthful.  They are not to operate by underground conspiracy or deceit.  In other words, WYSIWYG.  Thus we see that Gene Sharp's warning against building movements that depend on secrecy has an ancient and much higher antecedent.  Yet if the open building of an open and virtuous movement is to succeed, it requires careful strategy.  Hence the need for practical, hardheaded shrewdness.  If we feel our lack of this kind of wisdom (and after all, who can say that they know everything?), it's time to go to school.

The Potemkin Doctors

Two days ago I received my first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.  In slightly less than three weeks, I will receive the second dose.  You can tell from the fact that I have written this post that I lived to talk about my experience.

However, I wish I could inoculate people against the viral spread of misinformation coming from the Russian government.  (See this, this, and this for instance.)  Among the tools used by Russian intelligence agents are Internet trolls who pretend to be ordinary average Americans - yet the points of view expressed by these trolls conveniently happen to line up with Russian objectives against both the United States and the West.  I have been monitoring a few suspected trolls over the last several months, and I noted how they linked to essays written by Umair Haque which were designed to decrease support for the candidacy of Joe Biden among those who identify as progressive and liberal.  The ultimate aim of these essays was to make the 2020 election close enough to enable Donald Trump to steal it.  They failed to achieve their goal.

Now some of these trolls have become conduits for spreading distrust regarding COVID-19 vaccines made by the West, and they have made some outlandish claims about suppression of information regarding the risks of the vaccines.  However, the CDC website does indeed have pages which describe potential risks and how doctors should manage these risks.  (See this and this for instance.)  When I received my first dose, I was monitored for fifteen minutes afterward.  I left the clinic under my own power, as they say.

To me, the potential risks of vaccination are far, far outweighed by the potential risks and complications of getting sick from an actual case of COVID-19.  It should be noted that by now, about one out of every eleven people in the United States has been infected, so with or without the vaccine, it may just be a matter of time until most of us are exposed to the virus anyway.  While I do trust the efficacy of the vaccines made in the West, it appears that a majority of Russians do not trust their own homegrown vaccine.  If the Sputnik vaccine is actually both safe and effective (and preliminary reports in the Lancet appear to indicate that it may be), perhaps the Russian government would do better to focus its propaganda efforts on its own people.  And perhaps Putin himself should man up and get a shot of his own vaccine.  The best propaganda consists of a proven track record of telling the truth.  Putin's regime does not have this.