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.  

From D to D, Chapter 6 (Continued): Spending Wisely

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.  But employing that means of liberation involves accepting the risk of further suffering by the oppressed as part of their struggle.  And here we encounter a common problem: namely, that those who are in the group which must struggle for its liberation have been conditioned by the historical experience of their suffering into patterns of compliance by which they hope to minimize their suffering as much as possible.  It's as if they are saying, "Life is already hard.  Why make it harder for ourselves by challenging our masters?  After all, they can make things really hard for us!"  This attitude might seem to make sense, but it contains the seeds of a contradiction, namely, that the oppressed will suffer regardless of whether they comply as good little victims or whether they choose to resist.  The only difference between the two choices of suffering is that suffering as good little victims is pointless and ultimately hopeless, for it does not accomplish anything.  On the other hand, the suffering that comes from struggle contains within it the seeds of liberation.

The first persons in an oppressed group who choose to struggle for liberation are those who have experienced cognitive liberation as I define it.  This is the point at which an oppressed person decides that he or she will no longer tolerate the oppression and its accompanying humiliation, and that he or she will begin to live in truth from now on - even if it means suffering.  These cognitively liberated individuals frequently become the "seed crystals", the organizers around whom an organized liberation struggle forms and grows.  This willingness to live in truth no matter the cost (and the accompanying willingness to accept that cost) is essential for those who begin to struggle for liberation.  Cowards and Uncle Toms don't liberate themselves.  As Gene Sharp says in How Nonviolent Struggle Works  (HNVSW), "A prerequisite of nonviolent struggle is to cast off or control fear of acting independently and fear of the sufferings which may follow."

Yet this cognitive liberation (and its resulting courage) is not the only ingredient needed for a successful liberation struggle.  A fully human being has both a feeling heart and a thinking head.  The heart guides people to where they should want to go, but the head tells people how to get there.  The head is where strategy is crafted.  Strategy is the answer to the question of how to act "in order to meet one's moral responsibility and maximize the effects of one's actions...The better the strategy, the easier you will gain the upper hand, and the less it will cost you." (HNVSW, page 66).

Concerning the crafting of strategy, it is important to note how much the practitioners of strategic nonviolent resistance can learn from the military.  For the armed forces of most nations that have been around for a while contain entire departments that are devoted to developing and teaching strategy.  (Think of the National War College of the United States, for instance.)  As with nonviolent actionists, those who become soldiers must be willing to pursue a course of action in conflict even though pursuing that course carries with it the risk of suffering and death.  Yet the soldiers and their commanders must also be willing to adapt their course of action to achieve the greatest effect with the least cost.  Those nations whose militaries do not count the cost tend to lose.  This is why a significant portion of Gene Sharp's thinking on the strategic element of strategic nonviolent resistance was drawn from military sources.  We will consider one of these sources today.

Basil Henry Liddell-Hart fought in World War 1 as a British army officer.  He was twice wounded in action, and the entire experience of the war (both personal experience and as an observer of strategy) had a profound effect on him.  In particular, he saw the wastefulness of that war, the damaging effect of the egos of the chief leaders on the conduct of the war, and the futility of two evenly-matched armies going head to head against each other in a straight-up slugfest.  This is what motivated him to write The Strategy of Indirect Approach in the 1940's.  This book contains several terms that are mentioned by Gene Sharp in his writings, particularly the concepts of grand strategy, strategy and tactics.

Among the other elements in his book are the following gems:

• The purpose of strategy is "to diminish the possibility of resistance [by your opponent]."  This is achieved by choosing a course of action which your opponent is not ready to meet.
• The perfection of strategy is to achieve a decision "without any serious fighting."
• Clausewitz said that "All military action is permeated by intelligent forces and their effects."  Liddell-Hart comments that "Nevertheless, nations at war have always striven, or been driven by their passions, to disregard the implications of such a conclusion.  Instead of applying intelligence, they have chosen to batter their heads against the nearest wall."
• Instead of "battering his own head against a wall," the strategist's aim "is not so much to seek battle as to seek a strategic situation so advantageous that if it does not of itself produce the decision, its continuation by a battle is sure to achieve this."
• Therefore, the aim of strategy is to dislocate one's opponent - whether psychologically or logistically.  This occurs as the resisters pursue the opponent's line of least resistance, which on a psychological level is the same as pursing the opponent's line of least expectation.  
• One of the best ways of dislocating your opponent is to pursue a course of action which has multiple possible objectives.  By doing so, you increase your chances of achieving at least one or more of these objectives, while at the same time you put your opponent into a dilemma, as he will not know which of your objectives to guard against.
• "The more strength you waste the more you increase the risk of the scales of war turning against you" - in other words, the more strength you waste, the greater the chance that you will lose!
• "Do not throw your weight into a stroke whilst (or, for us Americans, "while") your opponent is on guard."

If strategy is so important in military action in order to achieve goals with the minimum expenditure of strength, how much more important it is in conflicts in which one side does not use physical weapons at all in its struggle against a potentially violent opponent!  In his writings on strategic nonviolent resistance, Gene Sharp points out how the method of strategic nonviolent action can itself be a powerful indirect response to the direct organized violence of an oppressor, and how that indirect response can shatter the oppressor's ability to oppress.  As Sharp says, "It is important to 'nullify opposition by paralyzing the power to oppose' and to make 'the enemy do something wrong'..." (HNVSW, page 67.)  Nonviolent means are uniquely suited to accomplishing this task.  

But nonviolent means must be directed by a wise strategy in order to achieve this goal.  It is not enough simply to be committed to a certain moral or spiritual philosophy.  Case in point: I have suggested to some of the Black Lives Matter organizers that they need to do more in-depth study of strategic nonviolent resistance.  They might not realize this, but the reason I suggested this is that I think that last year, their opponents were able over time to run rings around them during the protests over the police murder of George Floyd and other African-Americans.  One of these organizers  responded by emailing me a link to "an amazing organization" that does training in "Kingian nonviolence".  A quick look at this "amazing organization" shows that they want to train people in what I call "nonviolence as a an expression of spirituality."  That is NOT what I'm talking about when I say the phrase "strategic nonviolent resistance."  In fact, I would say that every time someone hears me say "strategic nonviolent resistance" and thinks I'm saying "nonviolence", a kitten dies somewhere.  (Stop killing kittens!  The cat you save may be your own.)  Strategic nonviolent resistance is NOT a mere "expression of 'spirituality.'"  It is instead a means of liberation.  I want it to be used by historically oppressed people of color as a means of liberation of historically oppressed people of color.  And on a very pragmatic level, this method works better (and is much cheaper) than violence.  Please forgive my tone here, but I'm trying to correct a serious mistake.

The chief element of an effective strategy is the grand strategy of the struggle group, and this grand strategy orchestrates the development and choice of  campaign strategies, tactics and methods.  In my next post in this series, God willing, I will discuss what makes a good grand strategy, as well as discussing how campaign strategies, tactics and methods should be chosen to implement this grand strategy.  Stay tuned.

The Organizer's Story of Self

One key element of building an effective liberation struggle is the ability of organizers to spread and reproduce their own cognitive liberation in the people they are trying to organize.  A key to this spread is the organizer's "Story of Self."  Learning to tell an effective story of self - the telling of that moment or choice point in a person's life which pushed them to become an organizer - is a challenging exercise.  

I just finished participating in an online practice session in which participants worked on crafting and honing their "Stories of Self."  I heard some beautiful and concise examples of people illustrating their own activizing moments, their own choice points.  As for myself, I think I illustrated my own choice point well enough, but I took too long to do it.  (We are supposed to take only two minutes!)  My story needs some more work...

From D to D, Chapter 6 (Continued): The Role of Cognitive Liberation In Strategic Thinking

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.  (Indeed, when one considers the ways in which people in the United States end up homeless nowadays, one can see that we have created our own homegrown refugees.)  This is an experience of apparent utter powerlessness in the face of an all-consuming, murderously abusive power.  

In the last post in this series, I quoted a source which said that "Whenever people are badly treated, they always resist.  In our experience, people always resist violence and abuse in some way."  And yet for that resistance to be an effective means of liberation, it must be strategic.  Developing an effective strategy of liberating resistance can be challenging.  Often the first challenge lies within the resisters themselves, for as Gene Sharp says in Chapter 6 of From D to D, 

"It is also just possible that some democratic movements do not plan a comprehensive strategy to bring down the dictatorship, concentrating instead only on immediate issues, for another reason.  Inside themselves, they do not really believe that the dictatorship can be ended by their own efforts."

As I mentioned in that last post, if a victim of oppression is moved to resist that oppression, yet the victim does not really believe that his or her efforts will actually bring an end to that oppression, this pessimism will tend to make the resistance ineffective if not downright dysfunctional. The kind of resistance that actually liberates requires first that the oppressed be liberated in their minds, in their souls. This is the beginning and foundation of the term "cognitive liberation" as I define it. And according to my definition, the beginning of cognitive liberation is the "point in which an oppressed person decides that he or she will no longer tolerate the oppression and its accompanying humiliation, and that he or she will begin to live in truth from now on - even if it means suffering (up to and including death)."  This kind of cognitive liberation therefore must rest on a foundation of willingness to suffer and to die, a foundation of confidence even in the face of death.  For me, one foundation of my own cognitive liberation lies in this: "Since then the children [that is, human beings] share in blood and flesh, He Himself [that is, Jesus Christ] likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives." (Hebrews 2:14-15)

One effect of this kind of cognitive liberation is that the liberated begin to say, "Where there's a will, there's a way."  In other words, they begin to actively explore their situation in order to find out what elements they can shift, and how the shifting of those elements can begin to achieve long-term goals.  But it is precisely here that those seeking to liberate themselves encounter a great debate.  It's as if one was a character in a fairy tale who escapes from a dragon's lair and begins to tread the path to freedom - only to find the path blocked by two stone towers which face each other on either side of the path, and from which soldiers in each tower lob stones and arrows at the soldiers in the opposite tower.  Atop one of the stone towers is a single white banner flying in the wind, with the word "SKILLS" emblazoned on it in in royal blue.  Atop the other tower is a single blood-red banner flying in the wind, with a skull and crossbones and a single word emblazoned on it in fire-colored letters: "CONDITIONS."  The soldiers in the "SKILLS" tower are a mix of cognitively liberated practitioners of resistance and organizing, and they are helped by a collection of friendly academics.  The soldiers in the "CONDITIONS" tower tend to all be academics and mouthpieces of large media outlets.  The "CONDITIONS" soldiers also tend at times not only to shoot at the soldiers in the "SKILLS" tower, but also at the pilgrims on the path of life who are escaping from the dragon.

For a central debate among social movement scholars is precisely the importance of skills versus conditions in the creation of transformative social movements.  And here I will cite Chapter 3 of Doug McAdam's 1982 book Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970.  It is in this chapter that McAdam defines what he means by "cognitive liberation."  In that chapter, McAdam mentions two theoretical models of power in a society such as that of the United States.  Both models acknowledge that "wealth and power are concentrated in America in the hands of a few groups, thus depriving most people of any real influence over the major decisions that affect their lives.  Accordingly, social movements are seen...as rational attempt by excluded groups to mobilize sufficient political leverage to advance collective interests through noninstitutionalized means."  

According to one of the two models, the disparity in power between the elite and excluded groups is so great that the power of the elites is virtually unlimited.  Thus the "CONDITIONS" scholars cite this structural imbalance of power as a determining condition of any liberation struggle.  (Or to put it another way, the message of the "CONDITIONS" soldiers is often, "Dude, it's hopeless!  Just give up!")  However, the "SKILLS" soldiers understand that every system of domination and oppression depends in some way on the people who are oppressed, and that thus "any system contains within itself the possibility of a power strong enough to alter it."  In other words, they see that the oppressed have a certain collective power which is able to fundamentally alter their situation if it is exercised collectively.  The reason why this power is not exercised is due to "shared perceptions of powerlessness."  Note that the elites "seek to keep unrepresented groups from developing solidarity and politically organizing..."  However, "the subjective transformation of consciousness is...crucial to the generation of insurgency."  In other words, when the perceptions of powerlessness in the oppressed are changed, the oppressed begin to liberate themselves.

How then does that perception of powerlessness begin to change on a mass basis?  McAdam asserts that it first begins by a change in the large-scale circumstances of the oppressed, that is, when the structure of political opportunities changes.  Thus when large-scale external events beyond the control of the elites begin to disrupt elite power structures, there is a corresponding shift in the political opportunities available to the oppressed.  One thing that McAdam may not have emphasized enough is that the oppressed themselves can, by their collective action, create those large-scale events that disrupt elite power structures.

There are other elements to the shift in the consciousness of the oppressed.  One of these elements is the relative abundance or lack of a wide range of organizations created of, by and for the oppressed.  For the oppressed to begin to awaken, there must first be "an established associational network," an "indigenous infrastructure" of community organizations created by and for the members of marginalized groups.  It is these organizations (and their leaders) who facilitate the large-scale changes in consciousness among the members of marginalized groups.  McAdam quotes Piven and Cloward in describing this shift:

"The emergence of a protest movement entails a transformation both of consciousness and of behavior. The change in consciousness has at least three distinct aspects. First, "the system" - or those aspects of the system that people experience and perceive - loses legitimacy.  Large numbers of men and women who ordinarily accept the authority of their rulers and the legitimacy of institutional arrangements come to believe in some measure that these rulers and these arrangements are unjust and wrong. Second, people who are ordinarily fatalistic, who believe that existing arrangements are inevitable, begin to assert "rights" that imply demands for change. Third, there is a new sense of efficacy; people who ordinarily consider themselves helpless come to believe that they have some capacity to alter their lot."

But it is to be noted that these changes in consciousness are much more likely to happen among people who regularly associate with each other in groups than among isolated individuals. 

And here it is good to take a look at how this process of cognitive liberation has played out in some rather recent social movements.  First, on a negative level we can see how a counterfeit of this process has played out among the members of the white American right.  Indoctrinated by right-wing, agenda-driven media mouthpieces, many members of the American right came to believe themselves to be members of an oppressed class and to interpret what should have been acknowledged as their own personal problems as something else, namely, as an attempt by poor dark-skinned people to take things away from white America.  Second, these interpreted the electoral successes of the Republican Party as an expansion of political opportunities.  Third, unscrupulous pastors and other prominent figures in the American Evangelical Right used the association of their congregations in regular Sunday services to engineer a shift in the consciousness of their members such that they began to regard as illegitimate the hopes, dreams, and rights of everyone who was not part of their "tribe."  (These, for instance, are the people who for the sake of "liberty" refused to wear masks even as their fellow community members were dying of COVID-19!)

But there are more positive contexts in which this process played out and continues to play out.  Russia comes to mind.  I want to mention a masters' thesis titled, "Corruption and Cognitive Liberation in Russian Environmentalism: A Political Process Approach To Social Movement Decline" by Anna Katherine Pride.  This thesis was written in 2009, and it described the decline of the Russian environmental movement from the mid-1990's until 2009.  She traced this decline to a decline in "cognitive liberation" as defined by Doug McAdam, and hypothesized that this decline was due to a breakdown in social cohesion and trust caused by rampant elite corruption.  According to her view, the decline could be traced thus: "Corruption" leads to "Cognitive Liberation recedes/reinstituted fatalism" which leads to "Social Movement declines" which leads to "state reasserts power" which leads to "Political Opportunity Structure closes" which leads to "movement decline continues".  

And yet...it must be noted that a strong democracy movement has emerged in Russia over the last ten years, and that its emergence was due in no small part to people who kept working, kept organizing, kept persisting, kept resisting, and kept experimenting as reflective practitioners even during the reassertion of power by the State and the supposed "closing" of the political opportunity structure.  Brown's thesis correctly posits that a breakdown in social cohesion and mutual trust hinders cognitive liberation because it disrupts the very networks along which that liberation and change of consciousness spreads.  This is why dictators strive to atomize the members of their societies.  And yet successful liberation movements have been instigated in the most atomized, repressive and unlikely of societies, by people who had experienced cognitive liberation as I define it.  In the Maldives, for instance, the initial problem of social atomization was overcome by activists who started throwing evening rice pudding parties on the beach and inviting friends, neighbors and strangers.  (See Blueprint for Revolution, pages 62-64).  To quote a martial arts story I read as a kid, "Where there is no door, make one."  If we're ready to make that door, it's time to start talking about the elements of strategy.  Stay tuned.

Link - Baratunde Thurston Inteview of Jamila Raqib

Here is a link to another resource that readers can enjoy while waiting for the next installment of my series on strategic nonviolent resistance based on Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy.  The link at the beginning of this post points the reader to an interview which Baratunde Thurston conducted with Jamila Raqib of the Albert Einstein Institution in August of last year.  Although the immediate motivation for that interview seems to have receded into the background, the interview contains some very sharp and penetrating insights.  The interview took place during some of the largest Black Lives Matter protests of last year in response to the police murder of George Floyd.  Like myself, Baratunde is an African-American who understands the necessity and requirements of active citizenship for self-liberation.  Like myself, Baratunde was concerned and alarmed by the increasing violence that accompanied some of the protests of last year.  And like myself, Baratunde was concerned by the words of various white "liberals" who were calling for political violence.  Like myself, he became suspicious that these so-called "liberals" might actually be agents provocateurs.  

He discussed this and other concerns in his interview with Jamila Raqib.  As for Jamila, she is a very sharp and astute scholar of strategic nonviolent resistance, having studied under both Gene Sharp and Marshall Ganz.  In her responses to Baratunde's questions, she explained how strategic nonviolent resistance is much more than mass protest marches, how violence weakens a liberation struggle, and how vital it is for those involved in a liberation struggle to develop an effective strategy for their struggle.  She also touched on Gene Sharp's catalog of 198 methods of nonviolent action, and she described how and why she first became involved in the study of strategic nonviolent resistance.

The Tearing Of The Fig Leaf Dress

I still have a lot of reading to do in order to prepare my next post in the series on Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy.  Today's post will therefore not be part of that series.  And it will be a short post.

But I do want to comment on the significance of some of the geopolitical events which have taken place during the last month or so.  In particular, I want to comment on a particular effect of the massive protests which have taken place in Russia against the regime of Vladimir Putin.  Those who have been paying attention to events during the last decade will appreciate the significance of this effect.  Note this: one thing that narcissists always target in their victims is the victims' memory - for it is the ability to remember that enables the victim to recognize patterns of abusive behavior, and to make connections between those patterns and the narcissists' current behavior.  (See this also.)  If pattern recognition can be sabotaged, the narcissist can prevent the victim from taking the steps needed to permanently remove himself or herself from the narcissist.  This is why remembering history - both personal and communal (including national and international) is such an important faculty.

Those therefore who remember much of the commentary in the blogosphere and on a lot of "alternative media" from 2007 to early 2017 will remember how much of that commentary attempted to paint Russia under Vladimir Putin as a Paradise in the making, a model to which other nations should aspire.  Putin was fond of comparing himself to Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's founding prime minister.  (See "Lee Kuan Yew and Russia: Role Model For Hire?", "Lee Kuan Yew Conferred Order Of Honour By Russia's Putin" and "How Lee Kuan Yew and Putin Exposed The Democracy Bogey" for instance.)  The comparison was a conveniently self-serving move for Putin, as Lee Kuan Yew had presided over the re-making of Singapore from a dirt-poor Third World ex-colony of Britain into an economic, scientific and technical powerhouse.  Putin sought similarly to paint himself as the re-making savior of Russia.

Putin's portrayal of himself as a savior was also central to his strategy of expanding Russian geopolitical influence during that time.  Other elements of that strategy included positioning Russia as a leader (perhaps the leader) of the white supremacist Global Far Right, and as a defender of traditional moral and religious values which were supposedly under severe threat due to the decadence of the West and the inevitable "excesses" that are supposedly associated with liberal democracy.  Saving the world from such "strong" threats required, of course, a "strong" leader.  And Putin was supposedly the man!  The project of expanding Russian geopolitical influence was also part of a larger narcissistic strategy of global empire which had first been developed by a rather slimy character named Aleksandr Dugin, and which I began to describe in a series of blog posts titled, "The Revanchism of the Third Rome."

For a while the strategy seemed to work.  This was especially true during the oil shock of the first decade of the 21st century, when oil prices briefly climbed above $140 a barrel on the world market and Russia made money hand over fist as a result.  But that oil shock produced economic effects which undermined the ability of the global economy to support such prices, and the cash boom which Russia enjoyed during that period began to dry up.  That boom is not returning.  Putin has been revealed to be a parasite, and his regime has been revealed to be parasitical.  And the nativist, populist leaders whom the Russian government helped to install in Britain, the U.S., Brazil, and other places have been revealed by the crises of the last two years to be parasites as well, parasites who are willfully, malignantly incompetent.  (To the Brexiteers: how does Brexit feel now?  Y'all happy?)

Now just as a smart wolf relies on sheep's clothing in order to optimize his catching of prey, so too do narcissistic beings (whether persons, families, or national governments) rely on the projection of an image of perfection.  But the underlying reality belies the image.  A wolf is not a sheep, no matter what kind of costume he puts on.  Putin is therefore no defender of traditional moral values if it is revealed that he is a divorced serial fornicator - even though his palace contains a church in addition to a pole dancing theater.  Nor has he turned Russia into a Paradise in the making.  Although he was able to recruit a rather large army of spin-doctors to project an image of perfection to the West, that image was like a dress made of fig leaves.  Perhaps the autumn of his regime has come, for it seems that the fig leaves have turned brown and brittle.  The protests during the first two months of this year have ripped that costume to shreds, revealing the raw flesh of life under Putin.  Eight months ago I suspected that something like this might happen - yet I am no prophet.  Rather, I say again now what I said back then: watch the weak signals.

P.S. Note that the most recent protests in Russia have been decentralized and performed in such a way that Putin's ПОЛИЦИЯ can't do a thing to stop them.  Nor can anyone inject violence into them.  The latest protests are an example of what the literature on strategic nonviolent resistance calls "tactics of dispersion."  These protests show strategic sophistication.  You BLM leaders: are you reading this?  Pay attention!  I'm telling you this as a brother.  How I wish we had done something like this after Stephon Clark was murdered by the Sacramento Police!

Further Developments On Strategy

I am in the process of developing the next posts in my commentary and study guide on Chapter 6 of Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy (From D to D).  Chapters 6 and 7 cover the topic of the role of strategy in strategic nonviolent struggle.  As part of this development I find myself faced with the unavoidable task of reading a large amount of rather complicated material from a number of sources, and I am by no means finished with this reading.  Therefore, my next post on the topic of strategy will be delayed until next week at least.  Future posts on strategy will cover the anatomy of strategic development, the people responsible for developing various levels of strategy, various models of command and control of movement strategy, and the role of training in development of strong movements.

For those who want to follow along with me in my research, here is a partial list of sources which I am studying:

• The Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency (Chapter 2), Doug McAdam
• Guatemala Woke Up: A Study About The Social Protests In Guatemala City 2015, Isadora Bennett  (Note that these two works expand on the theme of cognitive liberation discussed in my most recent post in the From D to D series.)
• Corruption and Cognitive Liberation in Russian Environmentalism: A Political Process Approach to Social Movement Decline, Kate Pride Brown.  My, how things in Russia have changed between the time Ms. Brown wrote her thesis and today!
• The Strategy of Indirect Approach (Chapter 11), B.H. Liddell Hart
• The community organizing literature developed by Marshall Ganz
• And, of course, From D to D, How Nonviolent Struggle Works (HNVSW), and Part 3 of The Politics of Nonviolent Action.

As can be seen, that's a large amount of reading to do, which is why it can't all be done in a week.  (That is, unless I want my house to get filthy, my laundry to pile up, and the garden to be overrun with weeds instead of veggies.)  Because quality is more important than "fast-food" quantity, I feel the need to take the necessary time to turn out high-quality posts on this subject.  Those who are waiting for these new posts are welcome to check out my extensive back catalog, although I don't always agree with everything I say...

Navalny's Sentencing Speech

Those who have been following events in Russia know that Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny has been sentenced to a prison term in a Russian penal camp for his defiance of the regime of Vladimir Putin.  At his sentencing hearing, he gave a hard-hitting speech which summarized a great deal of the sad reality of life for ordinary Russians under the regime of Vladimir Putin.  (Hint: they're not living in Paradise.)  Business Insider has published a condensed translation of his speech, but there are also Russian media outlets which have published what appears to be a full transcript of the sentencing hearing, including Navalny's remarks.  I thought it good to reproduce the full Russian version of his speech here, in case anything happens to those other outlets.  Also, if you want to hear audio of the proceedings, please click here.

And now, Navalny's full remarks (taken from tjournal.ru):

Я хотел бы начать обсуждение с правового вопроса, который мне кажется главным и каким-то упущенным из этого обсуждения. Потому что выглядит все немножко странновато, знаете. Вот сидят двое. И один из них говорит: а давайте посадим Навального за то, что он являлся [в исполнительную инспекцию] не по понедельникам, а по четвергам. А второй говорит: а давайте посадим Навального за то, что он, выйдя из комы, немедленно не приехал к нам отмечаться.

Обсуждают понедельники и четверги, когда он должен был прислать какую-то бумажку. Но хочу сказать о небольшом слоне в этой комнате. Пусть все — и пресса, и люди, — обратят внимание на то, что суть дела в том, чтобы меня посадить по делу, по которому я был уже признан невиновным и оно уже признано сфабрикованным. Это не моё мнение.

Если мы откроем любой учебник уголовного права (надеюсь, ваша честь, вы это делали) мы увидим, что ЕСПЧ является частью судебной системы России. И эти решения обязательны, потому что ЕСПЧ является частью Совета Европы. Я прошел все необходимые стадии судебного процесса, и ЕСПЧ написал, что даже состава преступления в этом деле нет. Дело, по которому я почему-то нахожусь здесь, полностью сфабриковано. Мало того, Россия даже признала решение — половинчато, потому что мне даже выплатили компенсацию. Несмотря на это мой брат 3,5 года отсидел в тюрьме по этому делу, которое еще раз напоминаю, было призанно сфабрикованным. Я просидел год под домашним арестом. Когда мой испытательный срок заканчивался, меня за неделю арестовали, привезли в Симоновский суд, и без защиты продлили еще на год испытательный срок.

Немножко математики: в 2014-м году меня осудили, дали три с половиной года, дали испытательный срок, а сейчас 2021-й год. Но меня продолжают судить по этому делу. Меня уже и невиновным признали, и то что состава преступления там нет, но с упорством маньяков наше государство пытается посадить меня по этому делу. Почему же по этому делу? Уж чего-чего, а недостатка уголовных дел в отношении меня точно нет. Тем не менее, кому-то очень хочется, чтобы я ни одного шага не сделал на территории нашей страны, вернусь, как свободный человек. И чтобы с момента пересечения границы оказался арестантом. Мы знаем кому. Почему это случилось. Причина — ненависть и страх одного человека живущего в бункере. Я нанес ему смертельную обиду тем, что я просто выжил.

Я нанёс смертельную обиду тем, что я выжил. Благодаря хорошим людям — пилотам и врачам. Потом я еще сильнее его обидел — тем, что, выжив, я не спрятался, живя где-то под охраной в каком-то бункере поменьше, который я мог бы себе позволить. А потом случилось вообще страшное. Мало того что я выжил, мало того что я не испугался и не спрятался, я участвовал ещё и в расследовании своего собственного отравления.

И мы доказали, что именно Путин совершил это покушение на убийство. И вот это сводит с ума этого маленького вороватого человека в его бункере. Нет рейтингов — нет поддержки. Этого ничего нет. Выяснилось, что чтобы совладать с оппонентом, нужно просто пытаться убить его химоружием. Все убедились, что он просто чиновничек, которого случайным образом поставили на этот пост, который не участвовал ни в дебатах, ни в выборах. И это его единственный метод борьбы — убить людей. Сколько бы он ни изображал великого геополитика, мирового лидера, его обида главная заключается в том, что в историю он войдет как отравитель. Был Александр Освободитель, Ярослав Мудрый, и будет Владимир Отравитель трусов.

Я здесь стою на этом месте и меня охраняет полиция, Росгвардия, а половина Москвы оцеплена, потому что маленький человечек в бункере сходит с ума. Потому что мы показали, что он не геополитикой занимается, а проводит совещания, как бы намазать трусы химоружием. Главное в этом процессе даже не то, чем он закончится для меня — посадят или нет. Это не сложно. Главное, для чего это происходит — чтобы запугать огромное количество людей. Одного сажаем, чтобы испугать миллионы. У нас 20 миллионов человек за чертой бедности, у нас десятки миллионов людей относятся к тем, о ком говорим — «в Москве еще более-менее, а выйдете за сто километров — там полный швах». Вот у нас вся страна живет в этом полном швахе, не имея ни малейших перспектив. Получая 20 тысяч рублей. И они все молчат, и их пытаются заткнуть вот ровно такими показательными процессами. Посадить вот этого, чтобы запугать миллионы. Кто-то вышел на улицу — посадить еще пять человек, чтобы запугать 15 миллионов.

И главное, что я хочу сказать. Этот процесс, я очень надеюсь, не будет воспринят людьми как сигнал того, что они должны больше бояться. Это же не демонстрация силы — Росгвардия и вот это всё. Это же демонстрация слабости. Просто слабости. Миллионы и сотни тысяч посадить нельзя. И я очень надеюсь, что люди будут все больше и больше осознавать это. И когда они осознают — а такой момент придет, — все это рассыпется. Потому что вы не посадите всю страну. Потому что всех этих людей, которых лишили перспектив, лишили будущего, которые живут в богатейшей стране и получают ноль от национальных богатств… Ноль получают все остальные. Мы только по количеству миллиардеров в мире растем, все остальное падает, понимаете? Я сижу в своей камере и слышу репортажи о том, как подорожало масло, подорожали макароны, подорожали яйца. 2021 год! Страна — экспортер нефти и газа. У нас вся страна говорит о том, что макароны подорожали, мы жить больше не можем. И вот вы этих людей лишили перспектив и вы этих людей пытаетесь запугать. Я призываю всех не бояться.

Судья: вы ничего не сказали по поводу представления.

Ваша честь, вы говорите, что я ничего не сказал по поводу представления. Вот это все представление и есть. И все, что я говорю, — это моё отношение к представлению, которое вы устроили. Бывает такое, когда беззаконие и произвол являются сутью политической системы. И это ужасно. Но бывает еще хуже — когда беззаконие и произвол наряжают на себя мундир прокурора или судейскую мантию. И в этом случае долг каждого человека — не подчиняться тем законам, которые обряжены вот в эти мантии. За вами там, внутри вас — это и есть произвол и беззаконие. Долг каждого человека — не подчиняться вам, не подчиняться таким законам.

Судья: У нас не митинг.

У вас не митинг, у вас моё выступление. Ваша честь, вы не беспокойтесь. Все будет очень хорошо. Вы не перебивайте, пожалуйста, давайте по очереди, пожалуйста. Я высказываю свое мнение. У меня сложилось мнение относительно этого представления, я вам его высказываю. Другого мнения у меня нет, и будьте добры, меня выслушайте.

Ещё раз хочу сказать, что когда произвол и беззаконие оделись в ваши мундиры и изображают из себя закон, долг каждого честного человека — не подчиняться вам и бороться с вами всеми силами. И я, как могу, борюсь. И буду продолжать это делать, несмотря на то, что сейчас, с учетом того, что я оказался полностью под контролем людей, которые обожают все намазывать химическим оружием, наверное, за мою жизнь никто не даст и три копейки. Но тем не менее даже сейчас, даже со своего места, я говорю, что буду с вами бороться, и призываю всех остальных не бояться вас и делать все, чтобы закон, а не ряженые в мундирах и мантиях восторжествовали. Я приветствую всех тех, кто борется и кто не боится. Всех честных людей.

Я приветствую и благодарю сотрудников ФБК, которые сейчас сидят под арестом. Всех остальных по всей стране, кто не боится и выходит на улицы, потому что у них есть такие права, как у нас. Потому что наша страна принадлежит им в той же самой степени, как и вам, как и всем остальным. Мы такие же граждане. И мы требуем нормального правосудия, нормального отношения к нам, участия в выборах, участия в распределении национальных богатств. Да, мы всего этого требуем.

Я хочу сказать, что в России сейчас много хороших вещей, а самая хорошая вещь — это вот те самые люди, которые не боятся, которые не опускают глаза, которые не смотрят в стол и которые никогда не отдадут нашу страну кучке продажных чиновников, которые решили обменять нашу родину на свои дворцы, виноградники и аквадискотеки…

Моё мнение заключается в том, что я требую немедленной свободы для себя, для других арестованных. Я не признаю ваше представление, оно полностью лживо, оно не соответствует закону, и я требую своего немедленного освобождения.

From D to D, Chapter 6: The Need For Strategic Planning

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. These "chosen few" have been working to turn the entire world into a bit of Hell for the poor and afflicted of the earth.  One of these chosen few, a certain Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, tried to turn the United States into a bit of Hell on earth for many of us who live here, in the role which his government played in installing a certain Donald John Trump into the office of the Presidency of the U.S.  Now Trump has been deposed - and it is looking increasingly like the same thing may be about to happen to Putin.

As long-time readers of this blog know, the book From D to D outlines how an oppressed people can use nonviolent, yet extremely coercive means to rid themselves of dictators, autocrats, and other oppressors.  From D to D is part of a much larger body of literature on the subject of strategic nonviolent resistance.  Among this literature is the excellent book titled, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, and the book Blueprint for Revolution by Srdja Popovic (who was one of the masterminds behind the nonviolent overthrow of the regime of Slobodan Milosevic) and Matthew Miller.  Srdja Popovic is the person I credit for teaching us that "there are only two kinds of nonviolent struggle: the spontaneous and the successful."  It should be obvious therefore that careful strategic planning and analysis is required of resisters who want their movement to be successful. 

So we consider the opening words of Chapter 6 of From D to D, where we read that "if one wishes to accomplish something, it is wise to plan how to do it.  The more important the goal, or the graver the consequences of failure, the more important planning becomes."  And yet Gene Sharp acknowledges that often resistance movements break out in a spontaneous or unplanned way, that resistance leaders "do not bring their full capacities to bear on the problem of how to achieve liberation."  He then asks why it is that people who struggle to free their people so rarely prepare a robust strategy to achieve that freedom.  It is that question which I want to address in today's post.  For Sharp mentions that among the reasons, it is just possible that "inside themselves, [the resisters] do not really believe that the dictatorship can be ended by their own efforts."

It is obvious that a person's estimate of the possibility of achieving a goal will influence his or her strategic approach to attempting to achieve it.  Things that influence that estimate of possibility include the difficulty of the goal, the cost (in money, resources, pain, suffering and other elements) of achieving the goal, and the consequences of attempts that end in failure instead of success.  Sometimes also the estimate of possibilities is influenced by the person's own ability to imagine himself or herself succeeding in achieving the goal.  This ability to imagine may be weak and undeveloped if the goal imagined lies far outside the person's everyday experience.  For instance, if I read that in order to prevent heart attacks, I need to get in 10,000 steps a day, that is something that I can easily imagine myself doing, because walking to get to places is part of my life history.  Therefore I know that I can take 10,000 steps a day (although that might take a while, since 10,000 steps is about five miles!).  But if I'm watching the Olympics on a screen and I see someone clean and jerk 230 kilograms (that's 506 pounds), or pole-vault 20 feet in the air, or ski jump over 400 feet, that is quite far outside of my personal experience.  If someone were to challenge me especially to learn long-distance ski jumping, I would know intellectually that such a thing might be possible - that is, that most humans can train their bodies and minds to acquire the needed skills - but my brain would have very little enthusiasm for the project, due to the likely consequences I'd suffer from making a mistake. 

So we see that one thing that de-motivates people in attempting hard things is the realistic assessment of the hardness of the hard thing.  And yet we do see people who both try and succeed in the hard thing - Olympians who do indeed win weightlifting records, or pole-vault almost 20 feet (6.03 meters if we want to keep things metric), or ski-jump 132.5 meters.  Some of these Olympians look very ordinary, even though they do extraordinary things.  We also see people whose performance in certain domains is very much below average, even though there is no mental or physical defect in these people when compared to the rest of humanity.  As I mentioned previously, one of the main things that differentiates people in these groups from each other is the ability to imagine succeeding in doing the hard thing.  What then influences this ability to imagine, to dream big?

Often the factor that influences this ability is nurture.  For instance, parents who show their kids that they don't really believe in them, who refuse to encourage them, who ridicule their failures and ignore their successes, will tend to produce young adults who struggle to dare big things.  Yet nurture extends beyond the family unit to encompass an entire society.  It is not only parents, but the masters of entire societies who shape the perceptions and imaginations of the people who live in these societies.  When a person belongs to a historically oppressed group within a society, or belongs to a historically oppressed society, that person's ability to imagine, to dream big, to visualize possibilities, will tend to be shaped by the dominant oppressive society.  This is the "third face (or, 'third dimension') of power" identified by Steven Lukes, the face that dictates what people can and cannot believe to be possible.  This face of power is worn by the dominant power-holders in an oppressive society, who train the oppressed to believe that their oppression is not really "oppression" but simply part of an inevitable and realistic order, and questioning that order is unrealistic, or inappropriate, or "just not done."

According to the e-book Honouring Resistance: How Women Resist Abuse In Intimate Relationships, "Whenever people are badly treated, they always resist.  In our experience, people always resist violence and abuse in some way."  (Emphasis in original.)  Note that though this book was written for women in a specific context, the statement quoted above is true whenever people - male or female - are oppressed.  Yet the forms and outcomes of the resistance mentioned in this quote - the strategy or lack of strategy of this resistance - will be shaped by how deeply the oppressed or abused have internalized the "third face of power" of their oppressors.  Where this "third face" has been allowed to deeply infect the imaginations of the oppressed, their resistance will take on strange and dysfunctional forms.

I will now describe what I as an African-American man have seen of the dysfunctional responses of my own people to this oppression over the last five or so years.  To provide readers with my credentials, below is a picture of my desk.  The dark-skinned hand you see in that picture is my hand.  If you are an African-American and are reading this, watch yourself, because you're about to get some very tough love from one of your brothers.

First, the one-paragraph version of my "story of self."  I was born during some of the hottest action of the Civil Rights struggle in the United States.  My dad was a military officer, so I lived on military bases during much of my childhood.  Most of the time I was in environments which were very "white," and as a result, I took a lot of physical and verbal abuse from members of the "dominant culture" who questioned my right to share the same benefits they were enjoying.  My childhood was therefore rather hellish.  When I became an adult, that time coincided with a time in American history in which it seemed that the obvious racism had gone away and I could live in peace.  But my experience with white American evangelicalism showed me that the racism had not actually gone away - it had just gone underground.  And from 2013 onward - when first Trayvon Martin was shot, then Michael Brown, then John Crawford, then Tamir Rice - and so on! - I saw that the same narcissistic, damnable filthy pieces of garbage (Lord, help me to keep this clean!) who had made life miserable for me and my people were trying to bring back those days of Hell on earth.

There was no bloody way I was going to let that happen without a fight, so that's when I started reading literature on resistance, and that's when I began to discover the power and effectiveness of strategic nonviolent resistance.  But such resistance becomes truly effective not when performed by isolated individuals, but by a people collectively organized into an effective resistance movement.  So I tried to do my part to organize that kind of resistance among my people.  What I found in response to my efforts was not the beginnings of liberation, but something else, as described below:

• The Kvetchers' Club

These are the people I met who organized "listening sessions" so that we could spill our complaints about the increasingly racist and oppressive treatment our people were experiencing.  The goal of these sessions was merely emotional catharsis - so that the facilitator (or his or her bosses) could tick a box in answer to the question, "Do you feel heard today?"  Sometimes the catharsis was amplified by reading books about our mistreatment, books written by pessimists like Ta-Nehisi Coates.  One thing about some of these kvetchers was the way they tried to prove how "woke" they were by their profanity-laden, Ebonics-flavored complaints against their oppression.  Yet they never asked, "Ok then - this is unacceptable.  So what are we going to do about it?"  For the asking of such a question was deemed to be unacceptable by those who had been conditioned by the third face of power.

• Uncle Tom-ism

In my personal day-to-day life, this manifested itself as the attempt by some of my brothers and sisters to steer any collective activism of ours into directions that posed no threat to established systems of domination.  This steering also included sabotaging the efforts of anyone who was genuinely trying to build a disruptive, yet nonviolent resistance.  For instance, when Stephon Clark was shot in his grandmother's backyard, there were African-Americans who tried to organize creative forms of protest that would put police departments into a dilemma because these protests did not involve mass picketing, even though they would make the cops look very bad.  Yet there were Black employees of municipal bureaus and police departments who, when they learned of these efforts, tried to co-opt them in order to reduce their value as protest, and in order to instead portray these efforts as part of "a larger effort by people both in the police and in the community to solve our problems together!"  (The only reason why these municipal bureaus and police departments found out about these efforts is because some of these Uncle (and Auntie) Toms went and told them.)

But this Uncle Tom-ism had its manifestation in much larger circles, extending in some cases even to full-blown Stockholm Syndrome.   Cases in point among other members of other minority groups include U.S. Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.  But Black Americans are not to be outdone in this department, for we have U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (who is married to a doofus), and Herman Cain - a former Republican Presidential candidate, a former businessman and a former living human being whose true belief in Donald Trump cost him his life.  But the most egregious example of both Stockholm Syndrome and Uncle Tom-ism is Ben Carson, the former U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary.  A more pathetic and ridiculous whipped yard-dog of a man would be hard to find.  Almost nothing he says makes sense.

• The Free Lunch-Eaters

 Those who read of Gene Sharp's 198 methods know that among the methods classified as "Nonviolent Intervention" are those methods which construct a self-sufficient parallel society among the oppressed so that they can meet their needs without relying on a dominant society that wants to exploit and oppress them.  This building of self-sufficiency is an essential component of a successful liberation struggle.  And organizing this kind of self-sufficiency is very similar to organizing a potluck picnic or lunch.  Yet one thing that ruins such efforts is people who show up looking for a free lunch instead of a potluck.  I think particularly of one lady whom I met at a time when I was trying to organize a math club for African-American youth, due to the institutional failure of our public schools to adequately teach African-American children.  I tried to make it clear that I was organizing this club as a means of building our capacity to liberate ourselves from a dominant system that was destroying us, and that for this club to work, it would require a collective effort from all involved.  She kept on calling what I was doing a "program" (or "pro-graham" as she used to pronounce it), and she kept on referring to me as a "service provider."  She would also always say, "Honey, organizing is not my gift.  But I support you in trying to help my kid!"  Thanks be to God that I haven't seen that woman in over a year.  But if I ever see her again, I'm going to challenge her.  I'm going to say to her, "Since you refuse to contribute to your own liberation - looking instead for 'service providers' to deliver 'programs' to you - why don't you try going to Winco or Food For Less and loading up a shopping cart full of groceries.  Then try walking out without paying for them, while loudly thanking the store for its 'program'!  But before you do, please call or text me so I can show up and watch what happens to you!"

An additional danger of "free lunch-ism" is that an oppressed people can be bought off by a dominant power willing to shell out a few bucks to create an actual "program".  For the kind of "program" thus created will almost certainly not be designed to correct an actual imbalance of power between the oppressed and the oppressor.  Rather, it will be designed to benefit a chosen few from among the oppressed in order to buy them off.  And frequently, the program will be run by members of the Uncle Tom group who fight for positions as managers of the "program."  Gene Sharp quotes Martin Luther King in calling this sort of thing "tokenism" in Part 3 of The Politics of Nonviolent Action. 

• The Fat, Dumb and Happy

These were the people who simply could not be bothered to become activized, even as they saw the atrocities being perpetrated against their people, for they were too submerged in their own lives and their own comforts.  To be fair to these people, being fat, dumb and happy is not exclusively an African-American weakness.  Rather, I believe it is the inevitable response by any people to having one's basic creature needs met without expecting or wanting anything more from life.  Indeed, the phrase "fat, dumb, and happy" was first used by Herman Wouk in The Caine Mutiny to describe the entire United States of America as it was during the 1940's.  I have a personal example of fat, dumb happiness in the person of one of my cats whose name is Vashka.  His is truly the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind - a mind unspotted by any intelligent thought.  There are only three things he lives for: sleeping, eating, and being petted.  He used to live for a fourth thing before I had him neutered...

But the problem with being fat, dumb and happy is that such an attitude precludes the exercise of active citizenship and makes people vulnerable to being oppressed in the first place.  You can bury your head in the sand only for so long.

As I said, these were the kinds of people and the kinds of responses I encountered in my attempts to organize my own people.  And although these responses were indeed very, very aggravating, I must also admit that they were a kind of resistance to oppression - even if the resistance degenerated into the escapism of the fat, dumb and happy.  It was a "resistance" in the sense that it was a reflexive personal response to an intolerable situation.  Yet it is obvious that this kind of "resistance" does not change anything in the long run.  In order to create the kind of resistance that brings permanent, serious change, there must therefore first be a liberation of the minds of the resisters.  They must free themselves from the third face of power of their oppressors.

I have some hard news for you.  There can be no liberation, no freedom without intentional suffering.  This is especially true in strategic nonviolent conflict.  Those who have experienced cognitive liberation are those who have come to a point in life where they choose to live in truth, no matter what it costs them.  As a Christian, I must say that if you are afraid of paying the price to live in truth, maybe it's because you have no knowledge of God or of the hereafter.  My source of strength and of cognitive liberation consists in this: "Since then the children [that is, human beings] share in blood and flesh, He Himself [that is, Jesus Christ] likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives." (Hebrews 2:14-15)  But whether you are a Christian or not, you must answer for yourself whether it is better to pay the price of living in truth as free people or to choose instead to be a pack of whipped yard-dogs so that you can persuade your masters to be a bit less cruel to you.  

I think again of the example of the Russians (including Alexei Navalny) who right now are resisting both a powerful oppressor and an all-consuming system of oppression.  These people are going for broke.  I also think of the African-Americans who bravely resisted oppression during the 1950's and 1960's, people whose stories are contained in books like Radical Equations: Math Literacy and Civil Rights, and I've Got The Light Of Freedom: The Organizing Tradition And The Mississippi Freedom Struggle.  Those people went for broke.  We should too.  Only then will we be willing to craft an effective strategy of liberation.

The Shaking of Vladimir Putin?

I've been loosely following the events in Russia over the past week.  For those who don't know, Russia has been rocked by anti-Putin protests sparked by the arrest of Alexei Navalny upon his return to Russia from Germany, where he had received treatment for a poisoning attempt undertaken by Russian agents.  The resulting protests have been so widespread that Russian jails are now running short of space to contain newly arrested protestors.  

Navalny has turned out to be an interesting character.  He and others like him are the inevitable grassroots response to a regime dominated and ruled by parasites.  As scholar Shaazka Beyerle has documented in her book Curtailing Corruption, it is the corruption practiced by the rulers of a crooked regime which frequently opens the door for the kind of effective nonviolent civil resistance that brings in much larger democratic social change.  Navalny has exploited that open door.  But it is important to note that Navalny does not represent a merely reactive response to social injustice.  Rather, he has been proactive - patiently building up organizational capacity over a period of many years in order to wield the organizational power that is now on display in Russia.  Remember that there are only two kinds of nonviolent resistance struggles: the spontaneous, and the successful.  Or, to quote an ancient Internet proverb, "The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago.  The second best time is today."  Waging a successful liberation struggle requires a willingness to play a long game.

So what shall we make of Navalny's struggle?  There are some encouraging signs.  A movement that can continue even when its leaders have been jailed is a movement that has built strategic depth.  That depth is on display now in Russia.  It should also be noted that the protest movement has achieved one of the hallmarks of backfire - namely, that increased repression by Putin's agents has led, not to a decrease, but to an increase of public expressions of outrage against the Putin regime.  There are, however, some areas for concern.  Navalny's movement will do well to emphasize the need to maintain nonviolent discipline in its protests.  Otherwise, Putin can use protest violence to bolster his claim to be the bulwark of law and order in the same way that Trump tried to make a similar claim during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020.  Second, Navalny's movement will need to guard against infiltration by agents provocateurs.  The BLM protest organizers failed to adequately guard against such agents in 2020.  Third, Navalny's movement must stand for something more than just Navalny himself.  Rather, his movement must articulate a clear vision of the future that can survive and inspire even if Navalny himself does not survive.  Lastly, Navalny's movement can greatly amplify its power if it strategically adds methods of economic and political noncooperation to its primary methods of protest.  For those methods of noncooperation (especially economic noncooperation) are far more powerful than mere mass protest, even though mass protest is a flashy, attention-getting tactic.  My advice to movement participants would be to not rely on the West to apply this sort of economic pressure.  As Gene Sharp says in From Dictatorship to Democracy, "Usually no foreign saviors are coming."  A liberation struggle is a time for self-reliance.

This week, I have also done some further reading on Putin, especially as a rather large bit of his dirty laundry is being hung out on the washing line.  For instance, I learned that he (paragon of moral virtue!) has been divorced since 2013, and has had a few mistresses since then.  Makes the stories of Putin's palace more plausible...  (How's that for alliteration?)