The Ride Of The Gray Cowboys

At the beginning of this year, as part of the work that pays bills, I found myself checking out a book on digital logic design.  The book was intriguing because it made use of a piece of open-source digital circuit simulation software.  (I always like reading about how to use free tools!)  As I read the preface, I ran across a paragraph titled, "How to Acquire Intuition?"  The paragraph explained why instilling mathematical rigor through proofs is a key part of instilling the mathematical intuition needed to understand digital logic circuits.  As a criticism of the modern way in which many technical subjects are taught, the authors wrote the following sentence: 

All we can say is that this strategy [that is, the non-proof strategy] is in complete disregard of the statement: "When you have to shoot, shoot.  Don't talk"  [Tuco in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly].

Let me assure you that today's post is not about digital circuits!  But I have to admit that the quote intrigued me for reasons that are completely non-technical.  You see, I have never watched The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly - although I have known that this movie and other movies like it helped launch the big-name careers of some hitherto obscure actors, including Clint Eastwood.  So I checked out a few YouTube clips from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and I pondered the career of Mr. Eastwood.

I have seen only a couple of Clint Eastwood movies in my entire life, but I know that he made a big name for himself as an actor by specializing in the portrayal of morally ambiguous leading characters, characters for whom one might root if one was still a kid, but whom one's parents might not allow around their children.  A case in point is his Dirty Harry character - a cop who doesn't quite play by the rules, a cop who makes us wonder whether or not he'll really do the right thing in the end, a cop whose message seems in part to be that the end justifies the means.  Eastwood's "spaghetti Western" roles were similarly morally gray characters, a somewhat jarring contrast to the image of the American cowboy which had been built up in American culture until that time - the absolutely pure and wholesome blond-white-and blue adult male "Boy Scout" in white hat, set in opposition to the utterly evil, black-hatted villain in the western movies and pulp novels of the early to mid-20th century.

Eastwood's characters largely get away with their moral ambiguity in his movies, as things usually seem to work out in their favor by the time of the closing credits.  In other words, the consequences of moral ambiguity are portrayed as positive for the ambiguous character who has the right skills.  Yet there are other storytellers who provide a glimpse into the costs and side effects of such ambiguity.  One such storyteller was the late John le Carre, whose subject matter was the spy as an agent of government and empire.  Like Eastwood's characters, le Carre's characters were intended to poke holes in a romanticized depiction of a certain type of hero - namely, the sort of uber-cool, gadget-laden, macho adventurer-spy typified by James Bond.  Like Eastwood's characters, Bond is morally ambiguous in his means, but in the movies, it's always okay because we are told that the ultimate end is ultimately good.  In le Carre's work, by contrast, the spy is seen as a morally ambiguous agent of a morally questionable empire, and the things which the empire demands of the spy in the course of his job frequently end up destroying his soul.  

Thoughts of le Carre (whose audiobooks I have recently been enjoying) bring me to a central question of tonight's post, namely, what sort of society we create for ourselves when we choose to live by the dictum, "Do not be excessively righteous, and do not be overly wise.  Why should you ruin yourself?  Do not be excessively wicked, and do not be a fool.  Why should you die before your time?" (Ecclesiastes 7:16-17)  In such a society, we may start out with a righteous end, yet find that in our misguided zeal we choose means that are completely incompatible with the end we profess.  Or - and this seems far more likely nowadays - we may find ourselves searching for ends and means which maximize our own personal advantages regardless of the ultimate righteousness of those ends, even though we say otherwise.  This leads to such things as the ambiguity and the sometimes immense suffering that comprises the legacy of Mao Zedong.  Or the fiendish Machiavellian legacy of V.I. Lenin and the horrors which the Bolsheviks unleashed on Russia and Eastern Europe.  Or the regime of the recently ousted former President Trump (although he seems to have heeded the part of Ecclesiastes which said not to be too good and to have disregarded the part that said not to be too evil!).  Or the legacy and ongoing "witness" of the white American Evangelical/Protestant church, which has by now conclusively proven that it has nothing to do with the Lord Jesus Christ because it has no intention of ever doing what He commanded - especially in the Sermon on the Mount.  Rather, this church has shown that it is the spread-legged whore and serving wench of secular earthly economic and political power, a mere means to a materialist end consisting of earthly domination for a certain select group of people.  When we consider American evangelicalism, we see that one consequence of the toleration of moral ambiguity is a society in which people say things merely to try to achieve certain effects in their hearers, rather than saying things in order to communicate truth.  Hence, for instance, the Right's defense of Trump even in the face of Trump's own moral contradictions.

In short, if Clint Eastwood's characters are the sort of people whom good parents don't let near their children, then morally ambiguous societies are the sorts of places in which good parents don't let their children play - because someone is bound to get hurt in such places.  When such societies do arise (for "it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come"), then it becomes necessary for decent people to resist such societies and the masters who run them.  This has been the motivation for the series of posts I have written on strategic nonviolent resistance during the Trump presidency, and especially during the last eighteen months.  And if one goes through some of the literature on strategic nonviolent resistance that was written and published before the middle of the last decade, one sees that a righteous cause is a necessary ingredient of successful resistance.  It is not by itself a sufficient ingredient - for a righteous cause still needs good strategy - but without a righteous cause, what reason do people have to join a struggle?  Especially when joining a particular struggle may result in the loss of life, liberty and property?

Consider some of the things Gene Sharp said in his book How Nonviolent Struggle Works: 

• Cowardice and nonviolent struggle do not mix
• Cowards seek to avoid the conflict and flee from danger, while the nonviolent resister faces the conflict and risks the dangers involved
• Bravery in this technique of struggle is not only moral valor but a practical requirement
• Civil resisters ought to have confidence in the justice and force of their cause, principles, and means of action (Emphasis added)

Note that last point.  In other words, righteous ends must use righteous means.  Another writer, Jack DuVall, made the same point in a series of paragraphs titled, "Power from Ends" contained in an essay titled, "Civil Resistance And The Language of Power."  To quote DuVall, "For civil resistance to work, it has to shred the legitimacy of power-holders to whom it is opposed and model a higher legitimacy based on representing the real aspirations of the people.  But the fastest way to forsake that advantage is to resort to means that are not seen as legitimate."  (Emphasis added.)  This, for instance, is why Gene Sharp in his writings rejected both violence, sabotage, and the destruction of the opponent's property as appropriate means of struggle.

Contrast such moral clarity with more recent attempts during the last five or six years by so-called "civil resistance scholars" to "gray-wash" the theory and practice of strategic nonviolent resistance.  I am thinking particularly of a book I bought within the last few months titled, Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs To Know by Erica Chenoweth.  (I told you all in an earlier post that I was reading a book for which I might write a critique soon.  A delay of two months isn't exactly "soon," but I've been dragging my feet somewhat - partly because I've been busy, and partly because some parts of Chenoweth's new book make me choke.  More on that in another post.)  I had guardedly high hopes for the book when I first heard about it, but I had already begun to prepare myself for the possibility that Chenoweth might have become among the morally compromised "scholars" who now seem to inhabit the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.  It's a good thing I did prepare myself.  For on page 57 of her book, she seeks to legitimize those who want to include property destruction in the arsenal of what she calls "civil resistance", saying, "When it is disciplined and discriminating, and sends a clear message, property destruction can be considered a nonviolent method of sabotage..."  And she goes on to cite the Boston Tea Party as an example of the wise use of sabotage in a nonviolent struggle.  However, I'd like to suggest that perhaps the backfire among loyalists which resulted from this act has been overlooked.  And on page 79, she suggests that sometimes a movement can achieve strength only by partnering with allies who may not be willing to remain nonviolent, saying that "...questions of justice and political effectiveness are often in tension.  Most scholars of civil resistance stay agnostic on this question by leaving aside moral questions altogether and focusing on strategy, not morality..."  Similarly, chapter 3 of her book appears at first reading to be a moral minefield for a reader such as myself, as she paints those voices who advocate for allowing limited movement violence as people who are engaged in an honest debate over the effectiveness of tactics.

But it seems to me that the evaluation of civil resistance tactics and strategy solely on the basis of their supposed "effectiveness" can lead to a trap if we ignore the righteousness or unrighteousness of the strategy and tactics in question.  (It can also lead resisters to adopt means, methods, and ends that are both immoral and violent.)  For by ignoring questions of morality or righteousness, we ultimately ignore the Scriptural maxim that "...whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."  Such a maxim is easy to forget precisely because we humans tend to look at trends from time scales that are too short.  By way of analogy, for those who are handy with math, consider a parabolic function whose vertex is positive and nonzero, yet whose vertex is a maximum and not a minimum.  Over a short enough interval of the independent variable, the function looks like it will rise forever.  But over a long enough interval, we see that the function value eventually crashes back to zero before becoming forever negative.  Such are the ultimate results of moral graywashing - sooner or later, you lose.

Nimrod's High School Yearbook

 

Tower of Babel, Mathys Schoevaerdts, created

between 1682 and 1702, public domain

On the 13th of this month, a ninety-year-old, formerly somewhat well-known Canadian actor took a ride in a rocket manufactured and owned by Jeff Bezos, the owner and former CEO of the vast Amazon.com empire.  The name of the actor who took the ride is, of course, William Shatner, who was the main star in an American sci-fi TV series that first aired well over fifty years ago.  The name of that series was Star Trek.  And Star Trek, which initially struggled to find acceptance with the executives of the network on which it aired, has become enough of a cash cow that over the years it has spawned several big-screen movies and a number of spin-off TV series.  (Some might say that Star Trek has by now become in the American consciousness like a piece of chewing gum that has been left in a person's mouth for 55 years...)

Some interesting things about Shatner's Star Trek character, Captain Kirk: he was supposed to be a youthful super-achiever whose drive and determination had helped him to become the youngest captain in Starfleet.  He was also modeled very much after the type of Germanic war-hero typified in ancient Anglo-Saxon fables such as Beowulf - that is, he was always the first member of his crew to confront any mortal danger, the bravest and most physically capable (with the possible exception of his first officer, Mr. Spock), the point man leading the charge as his ship, the U.S.S. Enterprise, boldly went where no man had gone before.  (He was also a champion womanizer.  Lucky for him that there were plenty of compatible alien women on those planets where no man had gone before!)  According to several sources, Shatner struggled at times with his association with Captain Kirk during the first years after the original Star Trek series was canceled by its host TV network - perhaps being fearful of typecasting.  But those struggles soon died away and Shatner began to consciously associate his own personality with the larger-than-life character of Captain Kirk.  And as Kirk had commanded the lion's share of attention in both the original series and the movies that resulted from it, Shatner sought to command all available attention for himself in any social setting in which he found himself.  I speculate therefore that the chance to ride in Jeff Bezos' rocket must have seemed the chance of a lifetime for him to recapture some of the lost glory of his youth.

Some interesting things about Shatner's rocket ride: most media outlets wrote that Shatner became "the oldest living human being to go into space."  But that begs a question: where and what, exactly, is "space"?  For if one digs beneath the surface (and if one is sufficiently geeky to do so), one learns a few things.  So watch yourselves, because I'm going to geek out for a few paragraphs.  First off, let's look at the launch vehicle that Shatner and his fellow passengers rode.  It is named the New Shepard 4, and its typical flight profile is thus: it launches vertically, then ascends under power for 140 seconds, reaching a maximum velocity of 3,615 km/h (2,247 mph).  Once the powered phase of the flight ends, the crew capsule coasts upward to an altitude of 66.1 miles above the ground, which is just above the von Karman line.  The von Karman line is a widely accepted definition of the boundary of space.  Given the fact that other definitions used by some of the armed forces of the world's most advanced nations are a bit more lenient (allowing for definitions of a boundary of space below 60 miles), we must hand it to Mr. Shatner.  He really did go into space after all.  But could he have stayed there for any appreciable time?  The answer is no.  The velocity of his capsule at its maximum altitude was far below the velocity required to achieve orbit.  And even if his capsule had achieved orbital velocity at its maximum altitude of 66.1 miles, atmospheric drag would have degraded its orbit very quickly so that in much less than a 24-hour day, he would have fallen back to earth again.  Such facts cut Shatner's trip a bit down to size.

And maybe the boasts of the people who put him into space ought to be cut down to size a bit as well, as well as the boasts of their competitors.  The two most dominant figures in the privately funded race to space are Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk.  They are now locked in a lawsuit over space, by the way.  (See this also.)  And both have made a number of rather outlandish claims about what they are going to do to get humans back into space again in a big way.  Bezos seems to me to have painted himself as the visionary humanitarian whose interest in space travel springs from his desire to make a better future for humanity.  Musk, on the other hand, seems to me to have painted himself as the uber-smart inventor whose genius has imbued him with the power to work magic.  Bezos boasts that his company is intending to build a space station as a place for researchers and industrialists to get some out-of-this-world work done.  Musk, on the other hand, has promised to colonize Mars.  (See this also.)  But geeks like me must ask, How?  Who's going to pay for it all?

For the undeniable fact is that space travel - the way it is done at present - is expensive.  The unavoidable element of expense consists of providing the kinetic energy required to accelerate a load to orbital velocity.  And it gets even more expensive if you're trying to accelerate that load to a speed that will enable it to escape the gravitational pull of Earth.  That required amount of energy is captured in the following formula:

where k.e. stands for "kinetic energy", m stands for mass, and v stands for velocity.  If you're handy with math, you can therefore calculate the amount of energy possessed by an object with a certain mass when it is traveling at a certain velocity.  That's how much energy must be supplied by the fuel which any rocket uses to accelerate a mass to orbital velocity or to escape velocity.  And when you calculate how much chemical energy is contained in any given amount of the fuels now used in rockets, you see that it takes a lot of fuel to put a given mass into space.  Moreover, there's a hard upper limit on the amount of energy you can extract from fuels that are burned in chemical reactions.  Making large amounts of these fuels costs some serious folding money.  That's why Bezos, Branson, Musk, and others will find that they will fail in the same places in which the governments who initially pioneered space flight have failed.  No one will be able to pay for their dreams.

But some might protest, saying, "We can always use nuclear fission rockets!  They have much higher potential energy densities than chemically fueled rockets!  And one day we'll have fusion rockets, which have even higher energy densities!"  However, the promise of cheap space travel via nuclear fission rockets depends on the possibility of an abundant supply of plutonium fuel, and an abundant supply of plutonium fuel depends on the ability to construct breeder reactors that are both safe and commercially viable.  At present, breeder reactors are neither safe nor commercially viable.  One problem which breeders have is that operation of the reactors destroys the materials the reactor is made of, by processes such as neutron embrittlement.  The same process threatens to make nuclear fusion commercially non-viable for the foreseeable future.  And this of course does not take into account the problems with proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear material and large amounts of radioactive waste, as well as environmental degradation.

So now, let's drop the geek persona for a bit and ask some philosophical questions.  Could it be that the space boasts of Branson, Bezos and Musk are part of a larger cultural trend?  Could it be that fantasies of space conquest are a sort of psychic defense mechanism for the most high-flying members of the Global North as the Global North is increasingly forced to confront the signs of its own mortality, its own loss of dominance, its own passing?  Could dreams and boasts of space conquest serve the same function as the magazines I see from time to time in the checkout line at Winco when I shop for groceries - magazines commemorating the life of John Wayne or of America's best rock bands or the British royal family or the Apollo lunar landings or World War 2 or the Beach Boys?  Could it be that the flight of William Shatner was, in the grand scheme of things, really nothing more than a very expensive moment of nostalgia?  Perhaps what's needed now is not a cultural escape into fantasies of unlimited success, brilliance, beauty, power and love, but a realistic letting go of lost glories and a realistic embrace of a future that is actually coming.

Why There's Not Enough For (Some of) You

It is no secret that the last decade saw a concerted effort by the Global Far Right and its Russian ringleaders to reverse the economic gains of communities of color and nations that are not part of the Global North.  This was the motivation for the ethno-nationalism fostered in many parts of Europe by far-Right politicians, as well as the motivation behind Russian attempts to pressure the European Union into restricting immigration into EU countries by barring nonwhite people.  If you want proof of this pressure, please read "The Writing Is On The Wall For The European Union" from the blog titled "Vineyard of the Saker."  The pretentious doofus who calls himself the "Saker" is a pro-Putin Russian transplant who lives in Florida, and it was this piece of his (and the picture which accompanies it) which in 2016 finally convinced me that the Russian government is run by some truly disordered people.

Two asides here.  First, since the Saker himself is an immigrant to the U.S., shouldn't we now treat him the same way he was wanting the U.S. to treat immigrants from certain select countries during the Presidency of Mr. Let's-Build-A-Wall?  Second, note that the "Vineyard of the Saker" is by no means the only pro-Putin sewage pipe dumping itself into the Internet.  There is also the "Unz Review" as well as many others.

Funny, the connection between the Russian government and white supremacy, isn't it?  And funny is the need which far-right groups and their leaders have to create both an in-group and an out-group - the creation of which is so typical of personality-disordered people.  A world in which people look different and have differing skin color/hair color/eye color/language of origin/place of birth provides an easy means to make this differentiation.  But I was thinking this past week of what life must be like in those places where, either through historical accident or design, everybody looks the same - especially those places where everyone is white.  How do the clique-creators behave in such settings?  The answer is bound up in the phrase, "the narcissism of small differences," and in the concept from calculus of the limit of the value of a function as the difference between the function's independent variable and a certain set value of that variable approaches zero.

The concept of race as applied to humans who look different from each other has been abundantly proven false, so hating people based on race is an example of a narcissism of a small difference.  But when everyone looks more or less the same, a personality-disordered person must look for even smaller differences on which to construct his in-group and his out-groups.  There have been a number of examples of this narcissism of smaller differences over the years, from the office cliques and cubicle politics that make so many workplaces hellish to the grander European narcissism of small differences that triggered World Wars 1 and 2.

And there is a much more significant example.  I am thinking just now of those European or Eastern European nations which have leaders who have been installed or helped to power by the government of Vladimir Putin.  A measure of the division within these societies is the level of wealth inequality within these societies.  This has been documented in the 2021 Global Wealth Report published by the Credit Suisse Research Institute.   On page 24 of that report we discover that the economic top 1 percent of the Russian population have owned around 60 percent of the total wealth of Russia over the last decade, and that Russia has a Gini coefficient of 87.8 percent at present.  Now a high Gini coefficient is like a high golf score - a sign that you're playing the game badly, especially if you're the leader of a country and the object of the game is to provide a healthy outcome for all your citizens.  

Looking at another Credit Suisse document, the Global Wealth Databook, provides another picture of the evolution of wealth inequality in European and Eastern European countries over the last ten years.  On page 115 of the Databook, we see the Gini index for the following countries in 2020:

• Armenia - 73.0
• Belarus - 66.7
• Bulgaria - 70.1
• Georgia - 81.3
• Hungary - 66.5
• Italy - 66.5
• Moldova - 69.4
• Poland - 70.7

I have listed these countries because of the association of their leaders with the Global Far Right and/or their association with Russia.  Note that although Poland is not ostensibly associated with Russia, the Polish government can be said to be aligned with the Global Far Right, according to some measures.  Concerning Italy, please also see "Inequalities in Italy" by the Inequalities Forum.  Note also that Italy has been turning increasingly fascist over the last five years.  (See also, "The Growing Concentration of Wealth In Italy: Evidence from A New Source of Data".)  A similar story can be told for Hungary, which means that Viktor Orban has not exactly turned that place into Paradise.  Similar stories can be told regarding the rest of the countries I have listed, but I'm running out of time tonight.  Concerning Orban again, note that high levels of inequality in a nation are almost always tied to corruption practiced by the ruling elites, as was pointed out in a lecture delivered by Margaret Heffernan to a class at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore.  We had our own case of this with Donald John Trump.  Note also that like Trump, Orban has tried to dodge the issue of inequality in Hungary by scapegoating the few nonwhite people he can actually get his hands on, who in this case are the Roma (Gypsies) who live in Hungary.  One last note about the countries listed in the table above: their Gini indices are calculated based on the best available data.  But not all of these countries are open, honest, and transparent in the publishing of their economic data, as documented in the Inequality Transparency Index of the World Inequality Database.  So actual inequality may be worse than noted.

Britain, of course, is a long-standing historical example of the narcissism of ever-smaller differences, whose second-class citizens have at times included the Irish, the Welsh, the Scottish, the peoples of the de-industrialized North Britain, the Cockneys, the Scousers, etc, etc.  And note - these people all look like each other and like the royal "Cool Kids"!  Note also that many of the people who were meant to be excluded from Britain by the Brexit look almost identical to the native Britons.  Note lastly that the Brexit has led to massive shortages in Britain - just in time for the Christmas shopping season.  The joining of Britain to the orbit of the Global Far Right has been a natural fit.  And the Gini index of Britain has been climbing upward over the last decade.  Boris Johnson has not helped.

How are many members of the dominant cultures of the world responding to the sudden appearance of their own disenfranchisement?  How are they responding to the surprise announcement that, " Sure, everyone whom we feel to be deserving got some, but, er, well, there's not enough for you"?  I don't know how the answer to this looks in other countries, but during the Trump years I used to drive by a homeless encampment which had a little American flag flying over one of the tents.  What badge did the dwellers in that tent wear that got them excluded from the big party?

P.S. To learn more about the spread of inequality through Russian society in 2020 and 2021, check out "The Middle Class Went Into Self-Destruct Mode" ("Средний класс вошел в режим самоуничтожения") from the Ведомости website.  Oh, the horror of losing one's middle place in an unsympathetic pecking order...!

Strategic Nonviolent Resistance - What's It To Me?

Those who have read this blog over the last five years have been exposed to a large number of posts which deal with the subject of strategic nonviolent resistance by oppressed people against an oppressive power.  Those who have followed this blog for the last twelve months have been exposed to a rather detailed, in-depth analysis of a particular book on strategic nonviolent resistance, namely, From Dictatorship to Democracy (shortened in these posts to From D to D) by the late Dr. Gene Sharp.  Each one of the posts in that analysis has involved a fair bit of weekly research - in some cases several hours for a single post.  That research was all performed on my own personal time, during a period in which I had many other responsibilities.  (In my last post I mentioned how good it feels to finally take time to clean and fix certain things around the house.  Those things got some serious neglect during the last year!)

Readers might well then ask, "Why did you take all this time to do this research?  Why did you embark on such an exhaustive analysis?"  Some of these readers (including a certain Aunt Tammy I know) may think they already have the answer from the general subject matter of my blog, and may tell themselves, "Oh, he's just a geek - he likes reading lots of books, and this particular subject just happened to catch his interest."  But that would leave unanswered the question of why I spent over $2,000 and 15 weeks of my life in 2019 to take a distance course in community organizing from Harvard University.  Upon finding out that I had taken such a step, some might say, "Oh, he's just an idealist - he's naturally drawn to activism.  Let's see if we can figure out his Myers-Briggs personality type..."  

But if you learned that I am an African-American, you might gain a few clues to the actual motivation for my study of strategic nonviolent resistance, and my attempts to organize it over the last few years among my people.  You might also gain a few clues as to why I have chosen to try to be an organizer in the first place.  In learning community organizing from the Harvard course, I learned that one of the first things an organizer needs to do is to tell his "story of self" to his audience, so that they might know what called the organizer to become an organizer.  I haven't yet told you the full version of my story of self.  Today you'll get to read it.  However, according to the Harvard course, telling my story of self is supposed to take no more than two minutes, and the version I am about to give you will take slightly longer than that.  (If you are a member of the Leading Change Network and you are reading this, please don't tell on me...!)  One other note: on my blog is a request that commentary contain only clean, family-friendly language.  For today's post and today's post only, I'm going to relax that policy just a bit.

*   *   *

 

I still remember when my mom told me to go into the front yard and fight a kid who was bigger than me.  It was on a summer afternoon between my 6th and 7th grade.  Our family had moved into our house the year before, and the house was located in a very white part of Southern California, and that was in the days when blatant racism was the norm in American society, and we were a Black family.  My dad – a military officer – had been stopped by the city police because he was walking through the neighborhood shortly after we moved into that house.  At the school I attended, I was regularly hit or slapped by other kids whenever I dared to speak up.  These kids openly called me a nigger to my face.  I felt powerless because my attackers were many and in many cases bigger than me, and I was only one person.  And most of the teachers were not helpful.  

During that summer, some of the more aggressive bullies used to play baseball in the vacant lot next to our house, and they would come right into our front yard and freely drink from our water hose without asking.  My mom knew who these kids were from my frequent complaints to my teachers and parents about them.  On this particular afternoon, my mom heard these kids insulting me after she sent me out to put the water hose away. What she heard pushed her over the edge, and she told me to go outside and fight the biggest bully.  “If you don’t fight him,” she said, “then I will whip you!”

I beat the kid twice – both the first time, and then after he had gotten his parents and his parents had gathered a mob of neighbors and they had come back to my house and my mom had come outside and hit his mom with a stick because she dared to put her hand on me.  The incident became for me a snapshot of the United States – a narcissistic, thuggish nation that trashed (and still trashes) other people in order to “make America great!”  And the fight showed me what I was capable of when I got really, really angry.  I discovered just how tired I was of being treated like a punching bag.

When I became an adult, I thought those unpleasant days were behind me, because I was able to put myself through college and start a career as a technical professional.  So it took me a long time – too long – to realize that the racism of American society had never really gone away.  It had just gone underground.  But six years ago the murders of unarmed Black victims by White cops exploded into the news.  When I read of Michael Brown lying dead in the sun for three hours – and that Darren Wilson was not punished – I saw how little Black lives actually matter to the people who run present-day American society.  I saw that there were worthless white supremacist bastards who had worked hard for decades to bring back the days when they could openly treat people of color as punching bags or as garbage, and who wanted us once again to accept being treated like garbage.

That has made me really, really angry – angry as hell.  Once again, I am being pushed to fight.  But this time I intend to both fight and win by building a movement of strategic nonviolent resistance among my people.  [Note: I did not say "nonviolence"!  Nor am I trying to be spiritual!  Rather, I read some books that taught me that this is the best way to win.]  Oppressed people begin to resist by building a new identity for ourselves based on our own self-determination.  This is is why I have chosen to start organizing my people for our own self-reliance.

*  *  *

So there you have it - my story of self.  And there you have the reason why every time I've read of some pig cop or group of pig cops shooting yet another unarmed African-American and getting away with it, I am taken in my mind back to that grade school fight.  Because that grade-school fight was typical of much of my childhood in this piece-of-garbage country known as the United States of America, this country which became great for a certain select group of people by trashing all the other peoples of earth.  You might well say that the incidents of the last several years have been rather triggering for me.  Those who suffer from PTSD will know what I mean.  And there you have the reason why the study of strategic nonviolent resistance - especially as presented in the writings of Gene Sharp - has held such appeal for me.  For Sharp's writings show how the power of oppressors can be disintegrated without the use of physical weapons.  Indeed, strategic nonviolent resistance - skillfully applied - is capable of regime change, as seen in Chapters 5 and 9 of From D to D.  I want to take strategic nonviolent resistance as far as I can possibly take it.

You may ask, Why?  Why go to such a radical extreme?  Because the events of the last decade have caused some irreversible tectonic shifts in the thinking of some of us who are members of communities of the oppressed.  We learned in our grade-school histories that the United States has been guilty of some really evil things in its bid to make itself great - yet we also learned that from time to time, there were seeming moves toward repentance.  The Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation were such a move, the gains of the Civil Rights struggle of the 1960's were another.  But the last ten years or so have shown us that there is an irreducible, unrepentant core of ugly people within the United States who cling to their dreams of supremacy at all costs, people who will never be converted and with whom it is impossible to build "beloved communities" according to "Kingian nonviolence."  Instead, our policy must be informed by the most up-to-date best practices for dealing with personality-disordered people.  We know that those with malignant personality disorders will never change, so why build a strategy for coping with these people based on trying to change them?  Rather, as blogger Anna Valerious once wrote, we need to "distance ourselves from those who won't distance themselves from evil deeds."  

You may say, "How do you know these people can't be changed?"  My answer: because they haven't repented.  For true repentance, it's not enough to just shed a few tears.   There's something the offender must also pay.  When Darren Wilson, George Zimmerman, the murderer of Eric Garner, the murderers of Aiyana Stanley-Jones, of Breonna Taylor, of Elijah McClain, of Philando Castile, of Stephon Clark and of other victims like them are all taken off the street, rounded up and thrown in jail for the rest of their lives, then it might become possible to say that the masters of our present society have changed.  When the U.S. Border Patrol and ICE agents who tore Latino migrant children from the arms of their parents and threw them into cages during the Trump years are themselves thrown into prison with no way out, we might begin to say that American society has begun to repent.  When the red-state Republican governments restore voting rights which they illegally took from people of color, then we might begin to believe that they are "bringing forth fruits in keeping with repentance."

Some last things.  There are those from the dominant culture who have studied strategic nonviolent resistance and have seen how devastatingly effective it has been in toppling hard-core repressive regimes in the past.  Some of the "scholars" from this group are now busily trying to screw up the teaching of strategic nonviolent resistance in order to cause the liberation struggles of the present and future to fail.  Their strategy depends on a belief that we who are among the oppressed are stupid and gullible.  They might wind up very disappointed.  For there will emerge a world - sooner or later - which is shared equitably by all the earth's people, regardless of race, skin color or national origin, a world in which there is no one group of people which enjoys ungodly privileges compared to everyone else.  You who are of the dominant culture can fight against the emergence of that world, and for a while it may even look like you've won - but the price you will pay is that you will go to hell.  Read Luke 16:19-31.

From D to D, Chapters 8 & 9: The "Sin" Of Not Needing You

This is another short post.  I wrote in my last post that I need to read a book in order to write a critique of it, and that that critique might become a post on this blog, as part of my continuing series of posts on strategic nonviolent resistance.  However, this week I have been busy fixing things at my house.  And I must say that fixing things feels really good - especially when those things have been either broken or messy for years.  The fixing is by no means done yet...

But I haven't stopped thinking about the depiction of the process of liberation-in-action described in Chapters 8 and 9 of Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy (shortened in these posts to From D to D).  Those who have read my last few posts on his book know that I have been particularly focused on how the building of parallel institutions and a parallel society by and for communities of the oppressed is a necessary part of a successful liberation struggle by the oppressed.  As Gene Sharp says in Chapter 1 of From D to D, "A liberation struggle is a time for self-reliance and internal strengthening of the struggle group."  (Emphasis added.)  And in Chapter 9, he writes, "Combined with political defiance during the phase of selective resistance, the growth of autonomous social, economic, cultural and political institutions progressively expands the 'democratic space' of the society and shrinks the control of the dictatorship. As the civil institutions of the society become stronger vis-a-vis the dictatorship, then, whatever the dictators may wish, the population is incrementally building an independent society outside of their control..."  (Emphasis added.)

Groups and communities of historically oppressed people who choose to build their own internal power and self-sufficiency will therefore go a long way toward achieving their liberation from a dominant oppressive society.  However, it is also true that groups and communities of historically oppressed people have often been "trained" to look to one or more of the dominant societies of the Global North for their salvation instead of learning to rely on themselves.  This has become the basis of the "soft power" sought by some of those dominant societies in their bid to establish global rule for themselves, for the leaders of some of these dominant societies have gladly dressed themselves up as "saviors" and "benefactors" ready to supply guns and other arms, military training, investment money, trucks and heavy machinery, sketchy Russian vaccines, etc, to the poor dark-skinned unwashed masses who seemingly "can't save ourselves."  I am thinking of one Global North nation in particular whose leadership looks at the entire earth as if it were already the special possession of this nation, a world which this nation's leaders have already carved up in their minds into zones with such names as "the near abroad" and "the far abroad" and on which they have drawn the "red lines" of their national narcissism.

But what if the oppressed societies (or even those societies which are categorized as "developing countries") choose to begin to build their own structures of self-reliance?  What if, moreover, oppressed groups within the societies dominated by the Global North begin to build their own structures of self-reliance?  What if these structures begin to provide for the needs of the people of these societies in a way that is better and stronger than anything the dominant cultures can offer?  I am thinking right now of the investment of Nigeria in the mathematics education of its population, as seen in such enterprises as the Cowbellpedia math competition.  One result of this investment: this year, 2021, saw a Nigerian teen named Faith Odunsi win first place in an international mathematics competition which featured students from many nations of the Global North. 

When communities of the oppressed build their own structures of self-reliance, they achieve the following results:

• They strengthen their own self-confidence and motivation as they begin to see the successes they are able to achieve with their own hands.
• They destroy the basis for the "soft power" sought by the dominant societies of the Global North.
• They manage to cross a few "red lines" as they prove that they do not need their wanna-be-Great-Power "saviors" from the dominant culture.  This causes those supposed "saviors" to choke a little.  Now that's fun!

P.S. I mentioned vaccines in this post.  The original version of the post read "worthless vaccines," but I have altered that phrase in order to make my meaning crystal-clear.  I most definitely believe in vaccination as long as the vaccines offered have undergone a rigorous three-stage series of clinical trials to prove both their safety and efficacy.  The Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson COVID-19 vaccines have all undergone this process, which is why I chose to receive the Pfizer vaccine in March of this year.  I have received both doses of the two-dose regimen.  I also appreciate the ongoing efforts to monitor the efficacy of these vaccines over time, among various populations, and in their response to the COVID-19 variants which have arisen during the last year.  The efforts to be honest and transparent - even when the news is not always good - have gone a long way in establishing the credibility of these vaccines.  The same cannot be said of the Russian Sputnik "vaccine", whose developers have been neither honest nor transparent.  Even the article published by Russian spokespersons in the British medical journal Lancet has relied on sketchy and unverifiable data.  Moreover, the publishing of that article has revealed the emergence of problems in the Lancet's peer-review process.  Yet the government of Vladimir Putin has embarked on a massive campaign of trying to make its Sputnik "vaccine" look really, really good by tearing down the vaccines developed in the West.  Which is to me yet another proof that Putin really is a thieving little man in a bunker, a Potemkin Village head-fake of a man.  Not even a majority of his own people believe in his "vaccine."  And now, rant off - secure from red alert.  Have a good night.

Research Week - Fall 2021

My summer "Backyard Office"

I don't have a lengthy post this week.  This is partly because I need to catch up on some things I didn't get to finish over the last few weeks.  But it is also partly because a book came to my attention within the last week, and I need to read that book so that I can write an intelligent and accurate critique of it.  That critique may well become next week's blog post.  

In the meantime, interested readers can view my "backyard office" setup shown above, which I half-jokingly promised in an earlier post to show in a YouTube "Study With Me" video.  As you can see, I never got to the "video" stage, so people will just have to content themselves with a still picture.  I'm mildly saddened by the fact that I'm about to lose this "office" for much of the next six to nine months, as it is supposed to rain this upcoming week where I live, and the weather will get colder.  I guess it's back to the spare bedroom as an office...

Speaking of YouTube, in the course of my paying work I discovered a couple of YouTube recommendation blocker browser plugins.  The plugins came in handy for me about three months ago when I needed to watch an instructional video in order to use a certain piece of electronic test and measurement equipment.  In fact, the plugins were so handy that I tried them on a couple of fingerstyle guitar videos.  I have therefore been experimenting with allowing YouTube once again to be an electronic presence in my life - this time, though, on a very tight leash.  If I start seeing weird neo-Nazi commercials, or if I find myself wasting time watching other people play guitar instead of practicing on my own ax, then I will have to ax YouTube for good.  If that happens, I'll make a YouTube video describing how I quit watching YouTube!  Or maybe not...

Parallel Institution-Building As The Answer To The Anti-Vaxx/Anti-Mask Crowd

I've been thinking over the last few days about the ongoing menace posed to American public health by the anti-vaxx/anti-mask arm of the American right wing.  This has been provoked by my encounter with staff at a couple of chain stores who informed me that their corporate offices have instructed store staff not to enforce state-imposed mask mandates.  Other things of notice have been the stories - both in the news and from other bloggers - of anti-vaxx/anti-mask agitators infiltrating churches and disrupting the opening of public schools.  This is noteworthy because the Delta variant of COVID-19 is especially damaging to young people.

So what if you actually believe in science and would like to be guided by evidence-based scientific recommendations for keeping safe from the pandemic?  What if, moreover, you are bloody sick and tired of the tantrums of the American right wing?  I have the following suggestions.

First, understand the motivation by that right-wing tantrum-throwing.  The tantrum is motivated by the frustrated desire for white supremacy and total domination.  This desire was frustrated on account of the 2020 Presidential election, which the chosen emblem and embodiment of supremacy lost by over six million votes.  Therefore, the deluded followers of this orange-haired emblem are busy throwing the most destructive tantrum they can legally (or semi-legally) get away with.  The Capitol insurrection went over the line, so they are playing it safe by merely trying to hold the health of the rest of us hostage.

Second, understand that these people are able to pose a medical threat only because we and they share many of the same physical spaces as part of our daily routine.  If you choose, you can join with like-minded citizens to change that fact.

Third, start changing that fact!  Are you concerned that the anti-vaxx/anti-mask crowd will threaten the health of your kids at school?  Then find like-minded parents and pull your kids out of school - at least for a while, and maybe permanently.  You can start homeschooling clubs.  In fact, in all 50 states, parents have a legal right to homeschool their kids.  Are you worried about going to the store?  Then organize a buyers' co-op and only invite people whom you can trust, who are willing to show proof of vaccination and are willing to wear a mask at all times when they are around you.  In other words, reduce the points of contact between you and the right-wing nutcases as much as possible.  

I must warn you, though, that if you do this, it will involve some elbow grease and some sweat equity on your part.  I must also warn you that if you do this, you can expect the agents of the American right to try to stop you - especially if you live in a red state.  For as Marshall Ganz has said, systems of oppression always depend on those whom they exploit.  But if you're not afraid of a fight (a fight which you fight by means of strategic nonviolent resistance!), then you can cause a major disruption and have a blast in the process.  For if enough people do this, we can stop this anti-vaxx/anti-mask foolishness dead in its tracks.  Because those who allow or promote anti-vaxx/anti-mask nonsense will start losing some serious folding money.

From D to D, Chapters 8 & 9: The Plight of the Little Red Hen

This post is a continuation of my "study guide" and commentary on Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy (shortened in these posts to From D to D). As we have moved into Chapters 8 and 9, the focus of these posts has turned to way in which oppressed communities use strategic nonviolent resistance to achieve long-term shifts in the balance of power between themselves and those who oppress them.  I have argued that the key to the winning strategies of successful nonviolent liberation struggles of the past has been the achievement of those shifts which come about by the oppressed building the sort of righteous parallel society of self-government, communal self-determination and of communal self-reliance that displaces the society ruled by the oppressor. To return to a quote from Chapter 9, "Combined with political defiance during the phase of selective resistance, the growth of autonomous social, economic, cultural and political institutions progressively expands the 'democratic space' of the society and shrinks the control of the dictatorship. As the civil institutions of the society become stronger vis-a-vis the dictatorship, then, whatever the dictators may wish, the population is incrementally building an independent society outside of their control..." - From D to D, Chapter 9, emphasis added.

How then does the building of parallel institutions by the oppressed fit into the general schema of strategic nonviolent resistance?  I'd like to suggest the following progression:

• A group of poor or oppressed people come together to discuss their common grievances.
• These people manage to move beyond the stage of mere griping or kvetching and start asking, "Okay - so things are bad and we're being mistreated.  What do we want to do about it?"
• In pondering the answer to that question, this group begins to discover the ways in which they themselves can collectively meet needs that are being deliberately unmet by the oppressors.
• They begin to act on this knowledge to create their own structures under their own control for meeting their needs.
• This communal self-reliance produces the following effects:
• It starts to create a new shared collective identity among the participants
• It starts to show them that they do indeed have power over their own affairs
• It begins to give them experience and practice in functioning and making decisions as a collective unit
• It begins to produce a collective cause-consciousness which arises out of a new experience of citizenship
• This cause-consciousness becomes the motivator for the group to start thinking about how to strategically use collective action to oppose the power of their oppressors.

One illustrative case study of this process in action is the Montgomery bus boycott, an action of coercive strategic nonviolent resistance that took place from December 1955 to December 1956 in Montgomery, Alabama.  The boycott was initiated by the African-American community in Montgomery due to the racist policies of dehumanizing segregation which were being enforced by the white supremacist political leaders in that city.  The grievance which was specific to the public transit system was that African-Americans were forced by law to give up their seats on a bus to any white passengers who demanded the seats, and that African-Americans were forced at all times to ride in the back of the bus.  The boycott is commonly portrayed in American mainstream media as an action that just "spontaneously" happened on a day when an African-American woman named Rosa Parks was arrested while returning home from work because she refused to give up her seat to a white man.  

In truth, there was nothing spontaneous about the boycott.  The African-American community already had a pre-existing social network of communal support, namely the network of Black churches in Montgomery.  There had already been organizers who were looking for a suitable occasion to challenge the evil law which humiliated Black bus riders on a daily basis.  Rosa Parks' arrest was merely the spark that kindled a confrontation that had already been largely planned by activists within the Black community.  And the boycott itself was sustained by the simultaneous emergence of a parallel institution which consisted of a network of African-American ride-sharing that allowed boycotters to continue to go to work each day.  

Other examples of parallel institution-building within the American context include the formation of the United Farm Workers union by Cesar Chavez.  The UFW had initially been conceived, in part, as an organization dedicated to meeting the needs of its members through such things as medical clinics and a funeral/burial fund.  Note that these things were funded by member dues, which were collected from poor migrant farm workers!  These member dues also built the strike fund which enabled the UFW to take care of its members who were put out of work by participating in strikes and boycotts.  But I want to point out that within the American context, such examples as these come largely from the fertile movement-forming middle decades of the 20th century which influenced American politics to enable communities of color to win significant rights - at least, on paper.  

Fast forward to today, a day in which it often seems that the only sort of mobilizing that comes easy is mobilizing people to participate in mass marches or rallies that take no more than a few hours of time or a few dollars of expense from those who participate.  A day, moreover, in which the most well-known members of the oppressed (as well as some of their more well-to-do self-appointed "spokespersons" from the dominant culture) busily excuse the oppressed from having to do anything for themselves at a collective level, saying instead that "these people have been downtrodden for so long that they are not mentally or psychologically capable of organizing for their own liberation."  Where does such a statement come from - especially when uttered by so-called "saviors" from the dominant culture?

To answer that question, I turn to some of the lessons I learned during the 2019 "Leadership, Organizing and Action" course that I took through Harvard University.  Module 1 of that course contains a relevant reading from the book No Shortcuts: Organizing For Power In The New Gilded Age, by Jane F. McAlevey.  McAlevey describes how movement generation has degenerated from the mid 20th-century recruitment of masses of disenfranchised people for collective long-term disruptive action.  Instead, nowadays, "...Attempts to generate movements are directed by professional, highly educated staff who rely on an elite, top-down theory of power that treats the masses as audiences of, rather than active participants in, their own liberation...", and, "Aiming to speak for - and influence - masses of citizens, droves of new national advocacy groups have set up shop..."  

These "activists" - many of whom are professional "activists" - have created activities which looks like movement-building, but in fact are nothing of the sort.  Among those activities are advocacy - in which a small, well-manicured, photogenic, upper-middle-class, and usually white cadre uses its access to media to speak "on behalf of" marginalized groups of people.  So we have people who wear buttons that say "Black Lives matter to me!"  (Thanks, but I may as well be a specimen of wildlife based on the way you are advocating for me, as if you were saying something like "Save the polar bears!")  The other ersatz activity that falls under this heading of ersatz activism is mobilizing, in which a small, well-manicured, photogenic, upper-middle-class, and usually white cadre gets together to draft a "theory of change" and a "plan of action" for a movement, and afterward recruits all the rest of us to help them implement their "plan".  So we are "mobilized" to implement a plan which may not represent our interests, since we had no say in drafting the plan in the first place.  

Let me tell you straight up that organizing - genuine, pure-D, 100 percent organizing - is harder than any kind of advocacy or mobilizing.  For organizing involves at every step - both in leadership, strategy, and execution - the ordinary people who comprise communities of the oppressed.  To quote McAlevey again: "In workplace strikes, at the ballot box, or in nonviolent civil disobedience, strategically deployed masses have long been the unique weapon of ordinary people...", and, "Organizing places the agency for success with a continually expanding base of ordinary people...the primary goal [of organizing] is to transfer power from the elite to the majority..."  In my experience, the hardest organizing of all is trying to organize present-day, 21st-century communities of the oppressed to begin to pool their resources to meet their own needs themselves, apart from any false charity offered by the dominant society.  

I have wondered often why this is so.  But first a little clarification.  I took the Harvard 2019 Leadership, Organizing and Action course after I had already tried - and completely rejected as useless - the so-called online civil resistance course offered by the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict in 2018.  The ICNC course was free, while the Harvard course cost over $2,000 and worked me like a dog for fifteen weeks.  Yet I don't regret spending a cent of that money.  The Harvard course was like a refreshing drink of cold, clean water in a desert after the swill of the ICNC course, and it most definitely was not a waste of time.  However, I must say that many of the examples we discussed in the Harvard course focused on organizing as a tool for building electoral power in order to prevail in the American electoral political process.  To me, it has seemed far, far easier to organize people to participate in a political campaign than it is to try to organize them for their own long-term collective self-sufficiency.  

Perhaps this is because of the sense of powerlessness that is far too frequently instilled in communities of the oppressed by those dominant power-holders who wear the "third face of power" described by Steven Lukes.  This third face of power dictates to the members of a society what the members can and cannot believe to be possible.  This is why it is so easy to find activists (including "saviors") from the upper-middle-class, college-educated strata of society and why it is relatively harder - significantly harder at times - to find people with the same activist zeal among those who inhabit the lower economic strata.

But perhaps this difficulty in organizing for collective self-sufficiency comes down to the innate laziness of so many of us (a sin shared by all of humanity at large), amplified by addiction to social media and the mind-numbing entertainment we receive through our glowing screens.  This has a corollary: namely the fact that so many of us have been conditioned to be freeloaders because of the "programs" of false charity which have bought off members of our communities in the past.  For an explanation of the deleterious effect of these programs, see "Services Are Bad For People" by John McKnight.  And note that I'm not saying that the dominant culture has no reparations that they need to make.  The fact is, they do - serious reparations indeed, lest they be damned!  But unless the reparations are so sweeping that they leave the dominant culture with no more power to dominate, they will function merely as a tool of control by which an oppressed population continues to be pacified.  Study the practice of euergetism in the ancient Greco-Roman world.  That euergetism has turned too many of us into the cat, the dog, and the duck in our attitude toward the frequently frustrated Little Red Hen organizer.  

I want to close with a final observation and a request.  The observation is that perhaps the framework of the story of self/story of us/story of now which has been taught by Marshall Ganz and the Leading Change Network may need to be revisited - at least a little bit.  (By the way, the Leading Change Network rocks!)  I can see how in the organizer's initial call to others to join him, his story of self needs to be brief and evocative, highlighting that pivotal moment which called the organizer to organize.  But I think the story of us necessarily takes some time, since it is a story which must be written in collaboration with other members of communities of the oppressed.  The same applies to the story of now.  And if the cost of the commitment which the organizer is asking of people is high, the amount of time required to craft a collective story of us and story of now will also increase.  A short story of us/story of now is good for nothing more than recruiting people into an electoral political campaign.  In order to organize our own parallel institutions, I think we need something deeper.  (Or maybe I just need to go back and study my notes from the Harvard course...?)

So perhaps practitioners of community organizing need to step up and tell their stories of how they succeeded in getting people to do the hard collective work of building communal self-sufficiency.  In other words, how did you successfully organize a long-term potluck among people who could only afford the ingredients for stone soup?

From D to D, Chapters 8 & 9: Where Are The Carpenters?

This post is a continuation of my "study guide" and commentary on Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy (shortened in these posts to From D to D).  Recent posts in this series have dealt with the important subject of the strategy of nonviolent struggle. As I said in recent posts, strategic nonviolent resistance does not rely on the weapons and resources of the holders of oppressive power, and one big reason why is that those who are oppressed do not have access to the weapons and resources of the powerful. This is why strategy and strategic thinking is so important. If the strategy of a struggle group is solid, the struggle group can achieve great shifts in the balance of power between the powerful and those without power. If the strategy of a struggle group is weak, foolish or nonexistent, then that group will lose.

A key to the winning strategies of successful nonviolent liberation struggles of the past has been the achievement of shifts in the power balance between the oppressor and the oppressed which come about by the oppressed building the sort of righteous parallel society of self-government, communal self-determination and of communal self-reliance that displaces the society ruled by the oppressor. To quote Gene Sharp, "Combined with political defiance during the phase of selective resistance, the growth of autonomous social, economic, cultural and political institutions progressively expands the 'democratic space' of the society and shrinks the control of the dictatorship. As the civil institutions of the society become stronger vis-a-vis the dictatorship, then, whatever the dictators may wish, the population is incrementally building an independent society outside of their control..." - From D to D, Chapter 9.  This was, for instance, a key element of the strategy of swaraj employed by Mohandas Gandhi in the struggle to liberate India from the British empire.

As I mentioned in the most recent post in this series, this building of a righteous parallel society with parallel institutions that meet the needs of the oppressed was conspicuously absent from the so-called "resistance" against the Trump administration from 2017 to 2020.  And it seems to have been painfully absent from the resistance by the African-American community to renewed racist oppression over the last decade.  This absence has not escaped the notice of honest and trustworthy scholars of nonviolent civil resistance.  For instance, Erica Chenoweth commented repeatedly in YouTube interviews from 2018 onward that the "resistance" against Trump seemed to be too one-dimensional, too much of a one-trick pony whose participants spent too much time shouting loudly in the streets against the world they saw coming into being and too little time articulating - in word and action - the vision of the world they actually wanted to see.  The articulation of this vision - a "vision of tomorrow" as described by Srdja Popovic - is much easier for bystanders to see and to embrace when it is embodied in deep, strong organizing of righteous parallel institutions for meeting social needs.  (See "Protests in Perspective: Civil Disobedience & Activism Today, with Erica Chenoweth & Deva Woodly", and "Social Movements in the Age of Fake News with Erica Chenoweth."  Note especially that second citation.  In it, Chenoweth discusses the pivotal role played those who built parallel institutions in the Polish struggle against the Russian-backed Jaruselski regime.)  As I have also mentioned repeatedly in this series, the combination of over-reliance on hasty mass mobilization and hastily thrown-together mass protest, combined with the lack of deep, long-term organizing, has allowed the holders of concentrated wealth and economic and political power to frequently inject violent agents provocateurs into many of the mass protests and mobilizations that have taken place in the U.S. over the last five years.

It may well therefore be asked why this parallel institution-building, this parallel society-building, has been so frequently neglected over the last decade or so by those who call themselves activists and who consider themselves to be leaders of struggles for liberation.  The answer lies in part in the endemic laziness of us humans who tend to "demand" change rather than creating that change ourselves - both as individuals and as self-conscious, self-organized collectives.  (Organizing is hard work, lemme tell ya!  I speak from experience.)  But I would argue that part of the answer lies in the bad advice many of us have received in answer to our questions about how to create liberating change.  

Some of that bad advice was discussed in my post titled, "The Poverty of Pivenism."  In particular, I took aim at the teachings and intellectual legacy of Frances Fox Piven and highlighted the spectacular failures of many of the mobilizations of recent years which embodied a Pivenist strategy.  I also took aim at a book by Mark Engler and Paul Engler titled, This Is An Uprising, a book which claims to teach the principles of successful strategic nonviolent resistance.  The Englers' praise of Pivenism combined with their disdain for long-term deep organizing leads me to believe that they are, at best, rank amateurs.  And yet not all bad advice is given by the ignorant rank amateur.  Some bad advice is given by those who deliberately seek to mislead.

I am thinking just now of June of 2020, in which there were massive protests over the police murder of George Floyd, and in which agents provocateurs had already begun to make sizable inroads into these protests for the purpose of looting and vandalism.  During that month an article was published in a weekly magazine called the Nation, and the title of the article was "In Defense of Destroying Property."  The article was written by R. H. Lossin, a white woman with blond hair and blue eyes.    (At the beginning of this year, she also taught a course with an even more provocative title, namely, "Sabotage: Violence, Theory, and Protest.")  Her White privilege insulates her almost completely from the consequences of saying such things, as well as the consequences that people of color would surely have suffered for following her advice last year.  Yet from her position of privileged safety she was advocating that we who belong to communities of the oppressed should engage in violence.  And yes, my definition of violence includes sabotage and property destruction, for these activities have the same effect of weakening movements for liberation that would occur if movement activists physically attacked their opponents.

But I am also thinking of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), and the difference between my first discovery of this group and my attitude at the final parting of our ways.  I go back now to the horrible and frightening days of the close of 2016, when many Americans discovered that our democracy had been broken and that we were getting a genocidal tyrant as the 45th President.  The discovery of the fact that Trump would be our next President combined with my anger and my commitment to Christian ethics moved me to seriously research what strategic nonviolent resistance had to offer.  So I discovered Gene Sharp and the Albert Einstein Institution, and I eagerly read How Nonviolent Struggle Works.  I watched a ton of YouTube videos which featured Gene Sharp.  I downloaded the audio of From Dictatorship to Democracy and listened to it over and over again while washing dishes, mowing the lawn, and doing whatever other mindless work was conducive to listening to audiobooks.  I discovered Jamila Raqib and her special emphasis on parallel institution-building and the constructive program as part of a successful nonviolent liberation struggle.

And I discovered the ICNC and the many YouTube videos produced by them.  These videos, produced between 2010 and 2016, were a source of fascinating information, deep insight, and hope.  I am thinking especially of the videos from the yearly Fletcher Summer Institutes which were hosted by the ICNC, particularly the videos from the 2013 Fletcher Summer Institute.  That summer seminar featured seasoned veteran activists and leaders of liberation struggles from South Africa to Bolivia and beyond.  In watching those videos I got to (virtually) know such people as Oscar Olivera of Bolivia, who led the successful struggle of the citizens of Cochabamba against the Bechtel corporation in the Cochabamba water war.  And Mkhuseli Jack of South Africa, who played an integral role in the initial victorious anti-apartheid struggle there.  And the Reverend James Lawson, who played an integral role in some of the more coercive nonviolent boycotts which ended de facto segregation in the American South.  And Shaazka Beyerle, who has done extensive research into the use of civil resistance against state corruption.

Unfortunately, the ICNC stopped hosting its Fletcher Summer Institutes from 2017 onward.  (A rather interesting coincidence, given the start of the Trump presidency in 2017, no?)  But I was pleasantly surprised (or so I thought) when in 2018, I read on their website that they were hosting a free online course on civil resistance during the fall of that year.  I eagerly signed up, and was glad to be accepted.  What I thought I was getting into (even though at this time I had never heard of Zoom and did not know the role that videoconferencing would play in online instruction especially in the present moment) was an engaging, instructive, live series of videoconferences with renowned experts and practitioners.  In other words, I thought I had signed up for a chance to converse with and ask questions of people such as James Lawson, Mary Elizabeth King, Hardy Merriman, Jack DuVall, Peter Ackerman, Erica Chenoweth, Maciej Bartkowski, Shaazka Beyerle, and others who had become something of a constellation of guiding lights to me from 2017 onward.

Instead, I merely got to participate in a series of online forums which were moderated by people I had never heard of, so-called "activists" and academics who, it seems, had never led a successful movement in their lives.  One of the main moderators was a guy named Steve Chase, and another was a guy named Daniel Dixon.  Mr. Dixon is the gentleman I mentioned in an earlier post who suggested that sometimes violent and nonviolent movements can combine in ways which increase the synergistic effects of both.  As I mentioned in that post, all the available research strongly suggests otherwise!  When I mentioned that I disagreed, and that I wanted to learn how parallel institution-building works to strengthen a nonviolent movement, both Dixon and others kept mentioning the Zapatistas as an example of a struggle group which combined violence with parallel institution-building, and they suggested that I had much to learn from the Zapatistas.  They were right.  I learned that the Zapatistas lost to the Mexican army and had chosen to renounce violence.  End of discussion.

But the ICNC staffers kept throwing up the suggestion that there was some sort of room for violent actors in a successful strategic nonviolent liberation struggle.  An academic named Veronique Dudouet kept citing an article by some guy named Ben Case which suggested that "'...ignoring civilian violence or assuming that it is always and necessarily harmful to movements limits the analytical reach of civil resistance research'. He then uses the case of the Egyptian revolution to prove that sometimes the use of limited 'protestor violence' might prove beneficial to civil resistance..."  Not only this, but the focus of much of the discussion on these online forums was solely on protest as a resistance tactic.  (This was not surprising, since many of the forum participants who were Americans identified themselves with "Antifa.")  I expressed frustration at this, noting that relying solely on protests was leading to incidents of violence occurring every time people came together, and asking why this online "course" wasn't exploring some of the other 197 of Gene Sharp's 198 methods.  Steve Chase responded by suggesting that other tactics were not as "disruptive" as mass protest.  (I guess he never heard of the Montgomery bus boycott!)  And he held up himself as a good example of movement organizing in that he organized an anti-fascist rally which included some organizations that use violent protest tactics, but which were persuaded by him to not engage in violence during his rally.  As I wrote to him later, that move of his was like playing with matches in a paper house, since if the government had instituted a crackdown on protest groups, they could have arrested him because of his association with the violent group he worked with.

To make a long story short, I dropped out of this online "course" after about six weeks or so.  They had nothing to offer.  And later, in 2020, when I saw that ICNC staffers were teaching that there were situations in which property destruction could actually help a civil resistance movement, I was completely turned off to them (though not surprised).  (See also, "Civil Resistance Tactics In The 21st Century", pages 66-67.)  In short, if the ICNC staffers are genuine and sincere, they have to me become like a minor league baseball team run by toddlers.  Where are the heavy hitters of successful movement building whose faces I saw in those Fletcher Summer Institute videos?  Why is the advice of the ICNC so lame now?  Why does much of their most recent advice contradict the research, scholarship and guidance of successful practitioners of nonviolent liberation struggles over the years - including the advice which the ICNC used to give back when I regarded them with respect?

But perhaps the ICNC contains people who are not sincere.  Erica Chenoweth hugely popularized the application of scholarship to the study of civil resistance.  I still have great respect for her because her advice is most definitely not lame.  But in her wake, I am afraid that there are "scholars" who have arisen to study civil resistance not for the sake of helping the oppressed to liberate themselves, but rather to derail the liberation of the oppressed by misleading them.  In this, they are like many people nowadays who go to school in order to obtain advanced degrees in psychology and behavioral sciences - not to help those who are hurting, but to land lucrative jobs with tobacco companies, the Republican Party and other outfits whose success depends on misleading people and turning them into addicts.  Meanwhile, where are the builders who will construct a righteous parallel society in today's oppressive world?

The Jewel And The Dragon

I need to keep my promises, and one of those promises is to finish writing a concluding series of posts on Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy, a book which deals with the subject of strategic nonviolent resistance.  But this past week I began to try to build new habits around time management, and the long-range goals I am trying to accomplish with my new time-management scheme include being in bed by 10 PM every night and getting really good on the guitar.  I have about an hour and a half of practice time scheduled for tonight...

Next week, God willing, I will have another post ready.  One thing I do want to mention in the meantime is that I have recently commented several times on this blog about how well the nations of the East (and I mean the Asian nations, not Russia!) have done in navigating global crises which have shown the weaknesses and fault lines of the nations of the West, including the United States.  One particular crisis which the Asian nations have navigated particularly well is the COVID-19 pandemic.

But now it seems that agents of the Global Far Right have infiltrated Asian societies in an attempt to sow division and discord.  This is especially true of the proponents of anti-vaxx (that is, anti-vaccine) propaganda who have made their voices heard in realspace and in cyberspace over the last few months.  One doofus who comes to mind is Brad Bowyer, who was born a British citizen but who managed to insinuate himself into a leadership role in a political party in Singapore - until he made a remark comparing Singapore's efforts to ensure vaccination compliance to the efforts of Hitler to round up Jews for extermination.  That remark has recently cost him his political position.  Let's see if he manages to bounce back.  And let's see if he is successful in his attempted cultural poisoning of Singapore.  Lee Kuan Yew would never have tolerated him.

Mr. Bowyer himself.  Image taken from the Straits Times

Singapore is not the only Asian nation suffering from the attack of the lunatic fringe, as seen in the following articles: "Anti-Vaxxer Propaganda Spreads in Asia, Endangering Millions," "Coronavirus vaccine: anti-vax movement threatens Asian recovery," and "The Inherent Racism of Anti-Vaxx Movements."  Note that last article, and note the murderously genocidal motives of the promoters of anti-vaxx propaganda.  Note also that one of the chief sources of this propaganda is Russia.  Perhaps the common people of Russia are distressed by the fact that Putin can't seem to organize a successful effort to put out the wildfires which are destroying their homeland.  They can take comfort in the fact that their taxes are being used instead to try to destabilize the rest of the world.