Author: NorthDakotaDemocrat

Horseless Carriage Show


1908 Maxwell (HC Series)

Swap Meet and Car Show held today at Bonanzaville, West Fargo, ND, U.S.A.

The incentive I had to tour this auto show was that as a youngster I knew the original owner of the 1908 Maxwell, above.

Also one of my uncles was an original owner of a 50s  Hudson, very similar to the 1956 model below.  

Feel free to add your own vintage autos in the comment section.

more below:

1928 Ford Model A


1929 Chevrolet


1939 Pontiac


1942 Studebaker


1956 Hudson


Ford Model T Race Car
on the right 1916 Dodge Touring


1958 Edsel Station Wagon

Effective Counter Attack Part IV

Effective Counter Attack-Part IV; Correcting Common Misconceptions About Nonviolent Action

For Part I see Effective Counter Attack; Consideration or Implosion?

For Part II see Effective Counter Attack-Part II; Pillars of Support and the role of Obedience

For Part III see Effective Counter Attack-Part III; Mechanisms and Methods of Nonviolent Struggle

Intro to Part IV

Why do I continue to promote nonviolent struggle?

I have sincere doubts as to the ability of our currently flawed political system to either inhibit or reverse the current totalitarian trend.

I doubt that our favorite politicians, even if elected,  can find the strength to  promote the will of the people without the “wind in the sails” that likely can only be provided by a national movement rooted in nonviolent struggle.

This monthly, and now lately, weekly/daily arguing/bickering over hypothetical scenarios that has prevailed at BoomanTribune I do believe is counter productive to increasing the strength of any sort of national movement. And without some sort of national movement, how do we blunt the authoritarian march?

Take one example: The suggestion that we ought to refuse to pay taxes.

In theory, possibly a wonderful idea. In all practicality, the action is likely to accomplish little except assuage an individual’s guilt. (If that’s your well- reasoned goal, well, then I wish you the very best, as I myself cannot afford financially or emotionally the hassles likely to ensue from that action.)

From a nonviolent struggle perspective on any action,  those members of past successful movements learned to ask at least these two questions;

  1. Is the proposed action a part of national movement strategy that can be effectively communicated to a critical mass of people?
  2. Does the proposed action have any likelihood of succeeding?

The proposal to “refuse to pay taxes”  would seem to fail on both.

Actions, proposed and taken that continually, fail do not build confidence in any movement’s abilities. And thus do not strengthen that movement.

Past successful nonviolent activists such as Gandhi developed action plans that bolstered his movement’s strength, not diminished it. His Salt March was an innovative and effective nonviolent action for that time.

So you feel that all the actions of past nonviolent movements will likely not  be effective in today’s world.

That may or not be so. But I would suspect that we have individuals capable of coming up with some innovative action plans that are both likely to be accepted by a critical mass of activists, and also likely to succeed.

Do you not think that THIS type of  hypothetical brainstorming would be more productive than the recent hypothetical thrashing?

I would hope that the main topic of this diary Correcting Common Misconceptions About Nonviolent Action would increase  the level of awareness of both the viability and the presently untapped power inherent in pursuing nonviolent struggle.

more below;
Just to be sure that there’s no confusion; every last word of the text in the following blue boxes comes directly from the source below. This is not my writing. My comments will come between the blue boxes. However, all emphasis is mine.- NDD (Any errors noted in the transcription or elsewhere may be addressed by using my email.)

Correcting Common Misconceptions About Nonviolent Action

Source: Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action [3 Vols.], Boston: Porter Sargent, 1973 (This is a one page pdf download.)

What nonviolent action is

Nonviolent action is a technique of socio-political action for applying power in a conflict, without the use of physical violence. Nonviolent action may involve acts of omission–that is, people may refuse to perform acts that they usually are required by law or regulation to perform;

acts of commission–that is, people may perform acts that they do not usually perform, are not expected by custom to perform, or are forbidden to perform;

or a combination of the two. As a technique, therefore, nonviolent action is not passive. It is not inaction. It is action that is nonviolent.

These acts comprise a multitude of specific methods of action or “nonviolent weapons.” Nearly two hundred have been identified to date, and more will emerge in future conflicts, and without a doubt, scores more already exist or will emerge in future conflicts.

Three broad classes of nonviolent methods exist; nonviolent protest and persuasion, noncooperation, and nonviolent intervention.

Nonviolent action provides a way to wield power in order to achieve objectives and to sanction opponents without the use of physical violence. Overwhelmingly, nonviolent action is a group or mass action. While certain forms of this technique, especially the symbolic methods, may be regarded as efforts to persuade by action, the other forms, especially those of noncooperation, may, if practiced by large numbers, coerce opponents.

Whatever the issue and scale of the conflict, nonviolent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and submission, and who see struggle as essential, can wage their conflict without violence. Nonviolent action is not an attempt to avoid conflict. It is one response to the problem of how to wield power effectively.

The following 10 points clarifies and attempts to correct many commonly held misconceptions about nonviolent action. I think these misconceptions are a major factor in people’s doubts as to the effectiveness of possible nonviolent movement.

Other than these 10 points I am at a loss to comprehend people’s lack of respect for what a nonviolent struggle might accomplish, other than just a simple lack of knowledge on the whole topic. The links provided in my first three diaries should be of some help to those wishing to increase their awareness.  

What nonviolent action isn’t

1] Nonviolent action has nothing to do with passivity, submissiveness, and cowardice; just as in violent action, these must first be rejected and overcome.

I hope this clarifies some of the confusion that some BT members seem to have equated nonviolent action with passivity.

2] Nonviolent action is not to be equated with verbal or purely psychological persuasion, although it may use action to induce psychological pressures for attitude change; nonviolent action, instead of words, is a sanction and a technique of struggle involving the use of social, economic, and political power, and the matching of forces in conflict.

3] Nonviolent action does not depend on the assumption that people are inherently “good”; the potentialities of people for both “good” and “evil” are recognized, including the extremes of cruelty and inhumanity.

4] People using nonviolent action do not have to be pacifists or saints; nonviolent action has been predominately and successfully practiced by “ordinary” people.

5] Success with nonviolent action does not require (thought it may be helped by) shared standards and principles, a high degree of community of interest, or a high degree of psychological closeness between the contending groups; this is because when efforts to produce voluntary change fail, coercive measures may be employed.

I would hope the members of the BT community might keep this in mind as we try to make good on our efforts to “agree to disagree.”

6] Nonviolent action is at least as much of a Western phenomenon as an Eastern one; indeed, it is probably more Western, if one takes into account the widespread use of strikes and boycotts in the labor movement and noncooperation struggles of subordinated nationalities.

7] In nonviolent action there is no assumption that the opponent will refrain from using violence against the nonviolent actionists; the technique is designed to operate against violence when necessary.

8] There is nothing in nonviolent action to prevent it from being used for both “good” and “bad” causes, although the social consequences of its use for a “bad” cause may differ considerably from the consequences of violence used for the same cause.

9] Nonviolent action is not limited to domestic conflicts within a democratic system; it has been widely used against dictatorial regimes, foreign occupations, and even against totalitarian systems.

This is an important point; Nonviolent action can still be effective should the current totalitarian trends in Washington, DC continue.

Even if we are so fortunate as to have significant successes in both the elections of ’06 and ’08, as many have said here we will still be fighting the corporate influence/corporate control of what remains of our “democratic” system.

10] Nonviolent action does not always take longer to produce victory than violent struggle would. In a variety of cases nonviolent struggle has won objectives in a very short time – in as little has a few days.

The time taken to achieve victory depends on diverse factors – primarily on the strength of the nonviolent actionists.

I doubt the current regime will be  affected by our actions without a more comprehensive and innovative national (and international) strategy.

Since “victory” depends “primarily on the strength of the nonviolent actionists”; I’say we need to be much more effective at eliminating the wasted energy spent arguing/bickering over hypothetical scenarios and make a more concerted effort to increase the cohesion of the various groups already involved in serious nonviolent struggle activities.  

See; Gene Sharp’s 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action listed here

     Gene Sharp’s 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action 2 page pdf download here

I appreciate the support of many members here who have both in the past and more recently encouraged my efforts in the promotion of nonviolent action.

Effective Counter Attack-Part III; Mechanisms and Methods of Nonviolent Struggle

Effective Counter Attack-Part III; Mechanisms and Methods of Nonviolent Struggle

For Part I see Effective Counter Attack; Consideration or Implosion?

For Part II see Effective Counter Attack-Part II; Pillars of Support and the role of Obedience

      So you’re sitting there in front of the screen wondering whether or not you ought to get involved in this nonviolent struggle stuff, and if so, how?  

     Well, I can see where one might think it would be a hard decision to make, especially if all one is considering is pounding one’s feet on the pavement in a street demonstration along with concerns as to what all that might entail.

    What I’d like for you to consider is this;

     I ask you, have you not already joined the nonviolent movement? Isn’t your participation here a proof of that?

     Sure, I know there are numerous social aspects to this community, and it’s a part of BT that I enjoy also. But that’s not the sole reason I arrived here, nor the sole reason I stay. And I’ve never met a single poster here who has not expressed a vehement dislike for the policies of the current administration.

     Democracy movement activists need entertainment and a mutual support system too, well, we’ve got that “in house” I’d say. So besides the social aspects, what are we doing here?

    I think every last thing we do here at BoomanTribune is nonviolent struggle activity.

     Are we not writing, reading, collecting and disseminating news, and information.  Are we not using our free press rights while they are still available to us? Are we not behaving like true citizens of a democracy?

    I think one of the questions we ought to be asking ourselves is on what topic each of us as individuals will choose to participate.

      Down below the fold there’s a link to a list of some 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action. It’s obvious that not all 198 methods involve street demonstrations. Pick one, or several, and just do what you can. It’s up to you what level of intensity you put into the effort.

     We need everyone’s help, regardless of whether that contribution is entertainment, emotional support, information dissemination or being out on the streets creating a ruckus.

    Let’s do it!

    Tools of the trade below the fold;

     The source for the following blue box text is;  — Robert L Helvey On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Thinking About the Fundamentals.

     [All text in boxes with blue background are from the above source. Robert L Helvey is a protégé of Gene Sharp]

     Note: I could not find Helvey’s book at Powell’s, so use link above if you’d like to order. The link is not the pdf download but the pdf is available there for free.

     Other than title headings, all  text in bold is “emphasis mine,” – NDD

Chapter Four

Mechanisms and Methods of Nonviolent Struggle

      …all that I claim is that every experiment of mine has deepened my faith in non-violence as the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. -M.K.Gandhi  

     Moving a society from a dictatorship to a democracy is difficult no matter what path is preferred. […] consideration should be given to the different ways, or mechanisms, in which nonviolent struggle produces the desired changes in the power relationship between the ruler and the ruled.

     Dr. Sharp identifies four “mechanisms for changing power relationships.” These are conversion, accommodation, coercion and disintegration.

      They provide a cognitive framework for viewing information regarding the dynamics of change in power relationships. These classes of nonviolent action are useful also as methods to activate change or to assess the effects of prior nonviolent actions or campaigns.

     Included also in this chapter is an introduction to the broad categories of nonviolent actions: Protest and Persuasion, Noncooperation, and Intervention.

     If you lack the time or energy to work your way through this diary and you still want to do something towards ending the Iraq war,  and preserving our democracy, then download the 2 page pdf from the link below lists the Methods of Nonviolent Action, and do the ones that seem to fit your circumstances.

     There’s just got to be one or two on that list that most anyone can do. Everyone should have a part in this.

     See; Gene Sharp’s 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action listed here

     Gene Sharp’s 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action 2 page pdf download here

Mechanisms

     The ideas of strategic nonviolent struggle must move from theory to practice in order to bring political and social change. Important in the transition from ideas to action is the selection by the opposition of the preferred mechanism, or process, for influencing attitudes and behaviors of the rulers.

     This decision will, in turn, then influence the selection of methods for achieving the desired changes in the relationship between the people and their government.  

     For a more detailed discussion of the mechanisms and methods, see Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Vols. II and III.

     Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Vols. I, II and III. forms the basis of  Helvey’s On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Thinking About the Fundamentals. If you have digested the latter, I highly recommend reading the former three volume series.

Conversion

     […] There may be situations where the regime can be convinced that its interests can be served by adopting a recommendation or demand by the struggle group.  

     Conversion has many advantages for the struggle group. The regime’s concession of the validity of the purpose for change could enhance the credibility and legitimacy of opposition leaders, reduce potential risks associated with direct confrontation with the state, and, very importantly, conserve resources for employment at later stages of the conflict. […]

     Recalling that strategic nonviolent struggle attacks the sources of power, conversion efforts against a regime’s pillars of support can be productive. […]Conversion is the primary mechanism for expanding and strengthening the pro-democracy forces.

     The skillful use of propaganda to contrast life under democratic and authoritarian regimes and news about current nonviolent actions occurring throughout the world are helpful in conversion efforts.

     News of demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, and other forms of protests are examples that affect public attitudes.

     Most importantly, a “vision of tomorrow” with a concept of how that vision could be achieved should be presented to the public.

     Perhaps the strongest force for conversion efforts is the demonstration of courage of those who oppose an authoritarian regime.

     Public acts of courage against oppression dispel the stereotype that sees nonviolent protestors as cowards. Courage is universally respected whether that courage is displayed by soldiers on a battlefield or by nonviolent warriors confronting an oppressive regime. […]

     For example, those who signed the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 were displaying great courage in defying the King of England as were the 1950’s and 60’s civil rights activists who participated in the “sit-ins” to end segregation.

     Both of these acts of defiance caused the public to examine the fairness of the objectives of a struggle for which its proponents would accept grave risks.

     It’s very important to come up with a “vision of tomorrow.”

     I have not seen the movie, Imagining Argentina (2003) but years ago I read the book, Imagining Argentina by Lawrence Thornton .

     And what I remember now, all these years later, is that Imagining a “vision of tomorrow” was the essential element in the ultimate defeat of the Argentine dictatorship.

     Imagining a “vision of tomorrow” is a very necessary first step in adopting an offensive posture. It’s fairly obvious that fighting this regime’s actions purely from a defensive posture is doomed to failure.

     Here’s an opportunity for many to participate who are unable or unwilling to participate in street demonstrations. Is it not obvious that there are many different ways for people to contribute to our democracy movement.  

 Accommodation

     Sometimes, a regime will accommodate a request or demand of the pro-democracy forces, not out of respect or courtesy, but because the regime may want to defuse social tension, influence attitudes of foreign governments, impress citizens of it’s concern for the welfare of people, or bring an issue to closure before opponents can exploit it for their own purposes.

     The regime has not been coerced but rather determines that its interests are not being directly threatened nor would it be weakened by conceding to the opposition on a particular issue.

     The reality is that the regime’s absolute hold on power has already been weakened and has become sensitive to issues that could arouse public hostility toward the government.  […]

     The cumulative effect of conversion and accommodation strengthens society and prepares it for even stronger action.

     Elections are commonly used by authoritarian regimes to accommodate opposition demands for political change.

     Unfortunately for the public, opposition leaders often naively assume that the elections will be free and fair, that the public can withstand government intimidation, or that international monitors can insure the integrity of the ballot counting process.

     The elections in Serbia in 2000 and in Zimbabwe in 2002 are examples of different election outcomes of rigged elections.

      In Serbia, the political opposition established an election monitoring system from the ballot boxes to Belgrade election central office. They had well-trained and organized Get Out The Vote (GOTV) campaign staff and a plan of action if the government should attempt to steal the election.

      The opposition groups’ early reporting of election results from the counting stations reflected a democratic victory, and the outcome was announced before the official results were tallied.

     When the government revealed that, according to its count, the opposition had not won, the people went to the streets and proclaimed their victory with mass demonstrations occurring throughout Serbia.

    The demonstrations culminated in a march on Parliament. Preparations were so complete that the police and military did not interfere when the new government was declared and installed. […]

     Zimbabwe’s election in March 2002 had a much different result. […] Little attention was given to a “Plan B” that would go into effect should the elections be stolen by the incumbent, […]

     With no detailed plan or any capacity to enforce the mandate of the people’s vote, the MDC [democracy movement] had no alternative but to limit its response to declaring the election neither fair nor free and to call for another election.

     There was no assurance whatsoever that a new election would result in any different outcome.

     The lesson here is that elections are too important to the regimes to lose since that defeat would mean the loss of legitimacy both at home and in the international community.

     For the same reasons, elections are also too important for the democratic opposition to lose. Preparations should be made to insure that the public is prepared to validate their votes at the ballot box with carefully planned measures to thwart the regime’s efforts to rig the results.

     So with the discussion above in mind, what preparations are we making if our next election is stolen? We all are well aware of what happened, or didn’t happen in 2000, 2002, 2004! I think we need a plan if indeed we have more fraudulent election results in 2006. Somebody should be thinking about what possible nonviolent actions can be taken that event.

 

Coercion

     Conversion and accommodation permit the oppressor the option to accept or reject the requests or demands of the nonviolent opponents with little or no immediate consequences.

     Coercion, however, can compel submission to demands placed before the regime. At a point where coercion can be effective, a regime’s real power has already been significantly undermined.

     Opposition groups need to understand that attempts to coerce prematurely may undermine their own credibility with the public.

     Coercive demands that challenge the very existence of an oppressive government should be made only after careful planning and an objective analysis of the chance for success has occurred.

     If forces compliance with the demands cannot be assured, consideration must be given to a postponement or reconfiguration of demands.

     Political parties and student groups sometimes make “demands” that cannot be enforced. […] If, for example, there is a “demand” for a “free and fair election,” what sanctions will be imposed upon the regime for rejecting that demand?

    Coercion is successful when the demands of the opposition are achieved against the will of the regime. […]

     While there have been instances where threats of nonviolent coercion have result in victory for opposition groups, threats without a credible capacity to act do damage to any movement, as happened in Zimbabwe in 2002 when two calls for a general strike failed to materialize.

     It took many months of planning and coordination before another successful strike could be carried out.

     Attempts to coerce without the capacity to impose threatened sanctions can result in loss of the momentum of the democratic struggle; active support can dwindle; and international supporters may question the viability of the movement.

     It is imperative that capabilities assessments be reviewed during the planning and execution of major nonviolent campaigns to avoid such adverse consequences to a movement.

     “Opposition groups need to understand that attempts to coerce prematurely may undermine their own credibility with the public.”  We’ve already had an example of this within the blog community. I’m thinking of the campaign to block Alito’s nomination to the SCOTUS.

    I participated myself in what seemed like a very worthwhile endeavor at the time. But it seems obvious to me now that our attempts to coerce the regime to appoint someone other than Alito not only failed, but did damage to our credibility not only to the public, but within our blog communities.

    We need to be careful to build confidence rather diminish it. No doubt we as a movement will make more mistakes, but we need to recognize the concepts involved as much as possible, educate each other on them, and try to improve our strategy so that we can build on some successes.

Disintegration

     […]Once the opposition recognizes that the balance of power has shifted in its favor, the regime should be attacked on a broad front by using the stronger methods of noncooperation and intervention.

     If these attacks are sustained, the regime will disintegrate, as the sources of power needed for maintaining its rule will no longer be available.

     If disintegration of a regime is considered necessary by the opposition, then there must be no reduction in the intensity and scope of nonviolent actions until the collapse of the regime is accomplished.

   A loss of momentum by the opposition, for whatever reason, can provide the regime with an opportunity to re-assert its power. […]  

     In recent days there has been some momentum from military people who have confronted this administration.  I’m wondering if there’s some way we can assist this process. I am not aware of anyone suggesting contacting the generals and other military people who have spoken out in criticism of present policies with regards to Iraq and Iran. I think we need to find a way to encourage more military people to speak out, show them that we are behind them on issues we have in common, remind them of their oath to support the US Constitution. Let’s see if we can come up with some ideas on this.

Methods of Nonviolent Action

     […] The methods of nonviolent action that are available for use by the opposition against an opponent are both extensive and varied. In The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Sharp identifies almost two hundred […] and advises that this list is not exhaustive. In fact, creative thinking is encouraged to tailor methods for specific situations. […]

     You’ll note there’s no mention of internet related elements such as news sites, email, blogs, to name a few. I would imagine some creative uses for the aforementioned could be devised.

      Ideally, one should first examine the objectives and then review the menu of methods to select those that provide the most appropriate means to further the strategic and tactical objectives.

     For ease of consideration, methods can be divided into three broad categories. These are protest and persuasion, noncooperation, and intervention.  

Protest and Persuasion

      Acts of protest and attempted persuasion provide a signal to the regime that the pro-democracy forces have serious disagreements and objections to certain actions and policies of the government. These protests are primarily symbolic in intent.

     Moreover, these acts also serve to put the public on notice that the nonviolent opposition movement is challenging the government for specified abuses.

     While acts of nonviolent protest and attempts at persuasion can be used to advantage at any stage of a strategic nonviolent movement, they are generally introduced early in a struggle, even at its public initiation.

     Whatever forms of protest and persuasion are selected, the acts should receive wide-spread media coverage. Demonstrations or protest letters have little or no effect if no one knows about them. […]

     These methods [protest and persuasion] do not constitute direct attacks on the opponent’s sources of power, discussed in Chapter 1, but rather they are indirect attacks intended to expose the actions of the regime to public scrutiny, express objections to them and attempt to persuade the regime and others that change is needed.

    Nonviolent struggle is more, much more, than demonstrations of discontent.      

     “Whatever forms of protest and persuasion are selected, the acts should receive wide-spread media coverage.”

     Well, it would seem to all intents and purposes that the vast majority of the “free press” now resides within the blogosphere. To be sure there are some fine examples of “free press” in the antique media on an intermittent basis, but if democracy were dependent on them it would very obviously be a lost cause.

    We need to do a better job of getting the information out. For example, I see tremendous opportunities to spread the information via a 3-fold leaflet. Let’s come up with some templates and see if we can’t come up with some easy to understand directions on how to download and print these out. I’d suggest we stick to black and white, then nearly anyone can afford to print a bunch of them.

   Then all you’ve got to do is leave a few here and a few there, like at the laundry, coffee shop, wherever people are likely to pick them up. I say scatter “a few here and a few there,” `cause that way if a bunch hits file 13 it’s not so great a loss.  

Noncooperation

    Noncooperation is the most powerful category of nonviolent methods available to opposition movements. Wise selection and planning for this group of actions within a strategy enhances the likelihood of removing sources of power from the regime. […]

     No government can survive without the cooperation of the people. The message that noncooperation seeks to convey is that “we, the people, will no longer help the government oppress its citizens.”

     The greatest impact of noncooperation is achieved when the actions that have been selected support nonviolent strategy and are orchestrated rather than haphazard.

     Coupled with the internal noncooperation campaigns against a regime’s pillars of support should be a concentrated effort to develop international support for the imposition of sanctions that focus on a withdrawal of cooperation.

     Noncooperation on the international level as well as within the country’s borders can help supporters of political change.

Social Noncooperation

     Every person in the country can practice social noncooperation. Avoiding social interactions with targeted members of the regime can be devastating to officials and members of their families.

     Social elites can stop inviting regime officials to social functions and refuse to attend government sponsored and private social affairs when officials are expected to be in attendance. […]

     Shunning sends a message that the people cannot tolerate those who support the regime. It should, however, be used with care and precision. If it used incorrectly, it could interfere with ongoing efforts to move regime supporters into the ranks of the opposition.

     Social and sports events that give prestige to the regime can be boycotted. Even wearing clothing frowned upon by the regime is an act of noncooperation. Those who have become selected targets quickly realize the message that such non-cooperation imparts.

Economic Noncooperation

     Based upon the obvious fact that all governments require revenues to provide the public services expected of them, economic noncooperation as a method of strategic nonviolent action is intended to attack government support by destroying or decreasing the economic incentives available to its supporters. […]

     I’m leaving out the discussion on taxes, other government revenue, bank deposits. I do not wish to give the appearance that I condone any particular action on these issues. If you are interested in this topic, I suggest you read the material and come to your own conclusions.

 

     […]Economic instability leads not only to the weakening of the pillars of support for a government, it detracts from and limits the regime’s efforts to counter an opposition’s political noncooperation efforts–not an insignificant contribution to the overall strategic objectives of a nonviolent struggle. […]

Political Noncooperation

     While any and all acts of noncooperation against a regime, as part of a strategic nonviolent movement, are “political” in nature, Gene Sharp identified thirty-eight specific political acts of noncooperation among his “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action” […]

     These actions are aimed primarily at the rejection of authority, a key source of power for a government or an occupying power.

     A collateral benefit of political noncooperation is that is also tends to strengthen civil society. Organizations gain experience and confidence in their capacity to act against the regime, alone, or in concert with other like-minded groups.

     Political noncooperation is a direct assault upon the government. Declarations, manifestos, and other documents rejecting the presumed authority and therefore the legitimacy of a regime can be used to convince the public that the regime has no right to exercise authority.

     These acts of protest are then followed by boycotts of government institutions, work slowdowns by civil servants, and innumerable opportunities for civil disobedience by the general public, which, if widely and consistently carried out, can neutralize or even disintegrate the power of an authoritarian regime.

Intervention

     Nonviolent actions whose intent or effect disrupts established behavior patterns, policies, relationships or institutions are acts of intervention.

     They may also have the effect of creating new patterns of behavior, relationships or even creating new institutions.

     Since these methods are more direct in challenging the status quo, they provide more immediate visibility to the issue at hand, a more direct challenge to authority, and the possibility of a more rapid resolution.

    On the other hand, acts of intervention may result in more immediate and severe repression than acts that are intended as protest and noncooperation.

     Recent US history provides examples of how effective third party intervention can be in changing established behavior patterns and social relationships.

     Lunch counter sit-in during the US civil rights movement were highly visible and effective actions that directly attacked and quickly ended racial segregation at restaurants.

    Moreover, these campaigns also brought the necessary visibility and sense of urgency needed to enact legislation addressing the broader issue of racial segregation.

     As decades have passed since these actions took place, the violence that occurred during many of the sit-ins is sometimes overlooked. Sit-ins provoked countless beatings, the unleashing of police dogs, and other acts of violence.

   This violence, often inflicted by authorities, initiated political jiu-jitsu, in that the power to inflict violence against peaceful  protestors spurred the even more powerful forces of justice to act against segregation. [#10 ]

     [#10 ] Political jiu-jitsu is briefly defined as “A special process that may operate during a nonviolent struggle to change power relationships. In political jiu-jitsu negative reactions to the opponents’ violent repression against nonviolent resisters is turned to operate politically against the opponents, weakening their power position and strengthening that of the nonviolent resisters.” […]

     In a strategic nonviolent struggle against an authoritarian regime, that force for justice on behalf of the people may not be the national government, but may require reinforcement from the international community. […]

                                           Chapter Nine

Insights into Strategic Thinking

[…]

     Just as artillery changed the nature of war in Machiavelli’s time, technology has given us capabilities to change the way nonviolent conflicts are waged. Computers, internet access, mobile and satellite phones, encryption programs, television, and radio are major weapons of nonviolent struggle.

     In preparing to wage a strategic nonviolent struggle, understanding those links between politics and the social and economic forces is critically important. Today, we must see these forces, not just within a country, but also the ones that are external, for globalization has provided opportunities to expand the battlefield far beyond what Machiavelli could have imagined.

     Well, there’s no end to it, but I’m obviously beyond the “pocket book edition.”

     I see endless possibilities for ways people can participate in ending the current war and reclaiming democracy and civil rights for we, the people. Let’s have at! Time’s a wasting!

Effective Counter Attack-Part II; Pillars of Support and the role of Obedience

For Part I see Effective Counter Attack; Consideration or Implosion?–NDD

     The women and men of Boomantribune are calling for an effective counter attack.  I know of no better method of developing an effective counter attack than a method that would use the principles and links discussed below the fold of this diary.

     I would ask that we try to have some CONSIDERATION for each other as we post comments to this diary as well as all others on BoomanTribune.

    It is imperative that we keep our focus on the task at hand;

     Either we frog march’m out, or we change their point of view.

     While I remain engaged in party politics locally, it seems doubtful that our near total reliance on party politics is going to be productive.

     I see no guarantee that the momentum of this current administration will be derailed by focusing on political activism alone, regardless of whether we have wins or losses in ’06, or ’08.  

     Every day more news arrives that tends to convince me that we’re several rungs up the ladder of fascism, rather than on the first couple of rungs.

     I SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

       Never, have I seen such an intense level of disgust, both on blog and off, with our existing political leaders.

     So, “What in the hell else can we do?” you say.

     Well, we have yet to seriously consider coordinating a Martin Luther King/Gandhi/Lech Walensa type movement.

     And believe me, I’m certainly not so foolish as to imply that any particular tactic the aforementioned leaders used would necessarily be applicable to the difficulties we face today.

     But from a study of the material referenced below it seems fairly obvious that the weaknesses in governmental structure, which allowed their movements to succeed, are very similar today.

     And there’s no doubt Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Lech Walensa were just as innovative in their day, as we will need to be  now, under the current threat to democracy.

     In fact we have advantages now that they didn’t have, such as our ability to communicate and disseminate via internet, cell phones, podcasts, etc.  

     The movements of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Lech Walensa were able to encompass a wide variety of political persuasions.

     So there’s no reason why everyone, from left of Democrats, immigrants, Democrats, center Democrats, DINOs, Independents, Libertarians, and possibly even some moderate Republicans can’t participate in a plan to influencing the policies of this administration.

     We have much more power at our disposal than we are allowing ourselves to believe that we have. This past week’s absolutely huge demonstrations in opposition to repressive immigration legislation have encouraged us all in that respect.

     And it would seem prudent to examine how it is that the Hispanic DJs of LA have an abundance of expertise in implementing nonviolent action.

     Comment by Militarytracy: After reading and digesting Effective Counter Attack; Consideration or Implosion? (Part I)

        It occurs to me that this is why Crawford worked.  Say what you will but before Crawford nobody spoke out public and openly questioning the Iraq war…..after Crawford we are free to question it here, there and everywhere. That is one step closer to ending it!  Let’s face it too….the powers that be still do basically whatever they please right now……so why didn’t they just arrest Sheehan at Crawford as they had threatened?  Sheehan had paid the ultimate price and had worked hard to digest what had happened to her and find a solution that was going to REALLY WORK.  She had embodied the principles you have above and applied them to Casey being killed in an illegal war in Iraq.  It wasn’t that we needed a messiah in Crawford Texas…..but she had managed to get it together and she never raised her voice one single time.  The rest of the military families and soldiers were still so wounded that we stole and borrowed from her energy there………a deeper knowing within us knew that the only real solution was going to come through behaving and doing and carrying ourselves as Cindy did and that meant complete nonviolent public civil disobedience and gently speaking and being the truth that we were as human beings.

        Some people say we need a third party. I wish we had a second one. Jim Hightower

        by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 10:17:45 AM CST

     Comment by NLinStPaul – in Effective Counter Attack; Consideration or Implosion? (Part I)

     NDD, I read this this morning and have had moments all day when it came back to me. I like the fact that so many people are thinking about this. It reminds me of the kind of preparation MLK did with people to get them ready. What we’re talking about is the same kind of movement – and we need to be ready.

The part of your diary I have been thinking about today is that our so-called leaders only have the power that the people permit. I really believe this. And have had two thoughts:

   1. The people we have GIVEN power to have convinced the American people that the only power we have in the political process is to vote. And now most of us are not even sure we have that. We have to challenge this!!

   2. This really explains why the “powers that be” had to stop Howard Dean. He really meant it when he said “You have the power” and it threatened the hell out of them. They knew it was true – and they didn’t want us to figure that out.

Thats where my thoughts are for now. I’m really looking forward to more about this. I think we’re on to something.

[snip]

You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one. John Lennon

by NLinStPaul on Wed Mar 8th, 2006 at 07:07:28 PM CST  

     Please give democracy a chance, continue below the fold;

                   Pillars of Support and the role of Obedience

     Obedience is at “the heart of political power.” A ruler cannot rule if the people do not obey. It is this insight upon which strategies for nonviolent struggle are based.

     If our purpose is to motivate the public to withdraw its consent to be ruled by dictators or other authoritarian regimes, we should first understand why people are obedient in the first place.

     — Robert L Helvey On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Thinking About the Fundamentals.

     [All text in boxes with blue background are from the above source. Robert L Helvey is a protégé of Gene Sharp]

     Note: I could not find Helvey’s book at Powell’s, so use link above if you’d like to order. The link is not the pdf download but the pdf is available there.

     Other than title headings, all text in bold is “emphasis mine,” — NDD

     The role of Obedience will be examined following the discussion of Pillars of Support.

Chapter Two

PILLARS OF SUPPORT

     […] Any regime will rely on some pillars of support more than others. At the same time, authoritarian regimes attempt to limit the expansion and strength of the opposition’s pillars of support.

     It should not be surprising that in a strategic nonviolent conflict, the operational focus for planners is primarily about the alignment and capabilities of pillars of support.

Identification of Pillars of Support

     The identification and analysis of pillars of support are fundamental when opponents of a regime begin to think about any nonviolent strategy.

     Until the primary pillars of the regime are undermined, neutralized or destroyed, there is little prospect of political reform or regime change.

     Those waging nonviolent struggle against an authoritarian regime, therefore, must give keen attention to key institutions and organizations.

Police    

     […] The motto “To protect and serve” is descriptive of the image most police departments worldwide seek to project to the public. However, the identity of who is being protected and served is not always the public.

     Instead, this most visible and omnipresent “face” of government sometimes gives priority to the task of protecting and serving a corrupt and repressive regime. […]

     For an example of a great nonviolent strategy, see how Boston Joe’s group developed a rapport with the local police prior to their protest in Lansing.

     The Accidental Activist: An Anti-War Diary (Part II) — Boston Joe — … From my own experience, that hostility between the police and the movement, if it ever existed in reality as some monolithic form, has largely died away.  There are still open expressions of righteous outrage at symbols of authority, to be sure.  But I believe that the level of understanding about non-violent change has risen.  There is an understanding that the police and the military are tools of authority, but an equal understanding that they are citizens.  They are a part of “the people” that will be the change.
We engaged them before these protests…  And it paid dividends all week long.

Military

     The use of military force to stay in power is viewed as the “trump card” by authoritarian regimes. […]

     The time to develop plans to undermine the willingness of the Army to intervene against civilian protesters is well before a government’s decision to employ them is made. […]

     Maintaining as much rapport as is feasible with the military (or a national guard) before and during a nonviolent action contributes to the ultimate success of a democracy movement.

     I remember watching TV coverage of   Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution” And I specifically remember that as Viktor Yushchenko walked through the great crowd of his supporters, his wife, Kateryna Yuschchenko would walk over to the barricades and chat amicably with the soldiers. I thought their actions on that day were a brilliant example of how to conduct a nonviolent struggle.

     The actions of military units in response to orders are influenced by the attitudes, values, and professionalism of its leadership. Officers generally view themselves as patriotic, loyal, and politically conservative. Their “professionalism” sometimes leads them to blindly support political leadership. […]

     The assimilation of democratic values into the military culture is a major factor in limiting the use of the military’s destructive power against the citizenry. Another factor is the perception of the military leaders that there will be an important role for them under a democratic government. […]

Civil Servants

    Civil servants are often maligned, criticized, ridiculed, and undervalued. […] Yet, political leaders… cannot survive without the obedient, skilled civil servants carrying out these seemingly innocuous activities.

   These are the people that translate orders into actions: they issue regulations, assess and collect taxes, prepare budgets, run schools, input information into thousands of databases, make purchases for the government, control the airways and harbors, staff embassies, maintain communication systems, and, in fact, perform all to the tasks that keeps regimes functional.

     No government can operate without them.

     Opposition groups who adopt strategic nonviolent conflict to seek regime change and democratic reform must understand the importance of winning the support of government employees.

     But it must also be understood that the very livelihoods of government employees depend on their obedience to their government employer, and, as such, few employees can openly oppose the government until there is clear evidence that the other pillars of support for the ruler have been seriously weakened.

     Nevertheless, commitment to an opposition movement by government employees, even if not openly expressed, can contribute to the advancement of the movement’s cause in ways limited only by the imagination.

Media

     If a popular movement for democratic change is to be successful, it must have the means to communicate its messages to its target audiences. Authoritarian regimes know this and attempt to deny or limit such access… […]

     Control of the press and other internal forms of mass communication by an oppressive government can be easily accomplished. […] There is a strong incentive for self-censorship… […]

     To overcome these internal constraints, offshore productions are now rather common, whether it is a Burmese radio station broadcasting from Norway or an Iranian television station in California beaming interviews with opposition leaders to audiences in Tehran.

     The possibility of mass communication originating outside a country’s border is exemplified also by the Serbian pro-democracy movement. Over 60 tons of leaflets were shipped into the country and distributed within a few days prior to the election in 2000.

     As an example of how a democracy movement can communicate with its target audience see the Project for the OLD American Century which has pdf downloads that can be used to print leaflets.

     Almost everybody has access to computer and a printer, so why aren’t we making more use of this technology to spread our version of the news via leaflets.

Business Community

     Even under the most centralized, socialistic authoritarian regimes, business communities play important roles in the economy. They provide to the people goods and services that the government does not supply.

     […] …international firms may have no particular interest in whether or not a government is democratic or tyrannical. What matters to them is profit.

     The challenge for a democratic movement is to convince these companies that change is coming and that it may, in the future, be important for them to be perceived as having been at least neutral in the actions that they have taken.

Youth

     A primary concern of authoritarian regimes is to prevent young people from becoming politicized unless that politicization is in support and controlled by the government.

     As long as students and other youth are not permitted to become an organized challenge to the stability of the government, opposition groups are deprived of the traditional vanguard for accelerated political change. […]

     Some people have tried to explain why young people are often willing to accept the risks of being in the front lines of revolutionary movements by suggesting that young people have “nothing to lose”. […]

     Most importantly, however, it is not what might be lost, but rather what might be gained by living in a free and just society that provides impetus for youth involvement.

     Young people do not generally rationalize their bondage under tyranny. Nor do they generally accept, as given, the impossibility of change.

     Young people have an instinct, yet undiminished by experience, to know truth from falsehood and right from wrong without numerous gradations of a continuum. It is this intellectual clarity that motivates them.

     As an example of the anti-Vietnam war movement leaders activities on university campuses, I recall three Chicago Eight/Seven members made appearances in ND in 1970.

Abbie Hoffman appeared at NDSU.  And David Dellinger and Rennie Davis plus Phil Ochs showed up at UND for an anti-war, anti-ABM event (scroll down) was planned to coincide with Armed Forces Day, 16 May 1970.

    My point is not to dwell on nostalgia here, but to question which if any anti-war leaders are carrying the message to the nation’s campuses.

     A word of caution is necessary whenever consideration is given to enlisting students and other young people into a democratic movement. […] A “code of conduct” is important for everyone participating in a movement, but it is especially important for youth organizations, and imperative that the code of conduct be accompanied by training and strong leadership to reduce instances of damaging conduct.

     Here’s another example of a very smart thinking on the part of group members who were involved in nonviolent action. See Boston Joe’s account of their reaction to vandalism (not necessarily by a young person) during the protest.

     The Accidental Activist: An Anti-War Diary (Part II) — Boston Joe — …We quickly decided that we were going to attempt to clean off the graffiti.  And before one of our group attempted it, I insisted that we report the incident to Rogers’ people inside.  The act was right in front of the surveillance camera.  And I did not[want]one of our group getting charged with a crime for attempting to clean the sign….

Workers

     […] It can be difficult to organize workers, but, once organization is under way, unity can spread quickly. Recall that the democracy movement in Poland was catapulted to victory after the electricians began a strike at the shipyard at Gdansk.

     One sector of the workforce of particular interest to planners of strategic nonviolent struggle is transportation and related industries. Any disruption of the movement of goods, people, and services can have immediate economic and political costs to the regime.

     At the same time, strategic planners need to consider possible unintended consequences if food and other essential commodities are denied to the public.

Religious Organizations

     Historically, organized religion has played important roles in political struggles against tyranny–mostly on the side seeking change, but sometimes not.

     Often religious organizations have networks, both spiritual and financial, throughout the societies in which they operate, from the wealthy elites down to the grassroots of society.

     Too, because religious leaders are usually well educated in the ways of society as well as in religion, they are generally respected by both their followers and others who know of their works, and they can often influence the attitudes and behavior of other far beyond moral and religious teachings. They can also bring a spiritual aspect to an opposition movement and even become the most articulate speakers for the opposition itself.

     On the other hand, they can become just as influential and just as articulate for the much narrower special interests of a tyrannical regime. Accordingly, movement leaders must be attuned to the task of encouraging the support of religious leaders or undermining the pernicious influence that they might have.

      In light of the discussion above, let’s remember that not all people who are members of religious organizations are right wing fundamentalists. Those of us who are members of religious organizations should be talking with both our fellow members and religious leaders.

     While I see no problem with shunning fundamentalist members, I think we do unnecessary damage to our democracy movement by exhibiting obnoxious behavior towards family, friends, and neighbors who take their religion seriously.

    We cannot succeed without convincing some of them to come over to our side, (if they’re not there already.)

Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)

     Any group or organization that can function outside direct control and supervision of the government is a potential asset to a democracy movement.

     International NGOs can raise funds, communicate directly with many publics, obtain needed expertise from abroad, and provide insights obtained from experiences of other democratic movements. […]

    An important value of NGOs in a nonviolent conflict is that they provide services to the public and thus demonstrate that people need not be totally dependent upon government. NGO activities can weaken the coercive, but subtle, bond that authoritarian regimes require for public obedience. […]

     Democratic movements need to be reminded, however, that NGOs have their own agendas. It is important to understand what those agendas might be and to insure that compatibility exists with the goals and objectives of the democratic movement.

     Other sources of support are professional organizations, political parties, foreign businesses, and foreign governments. Not to be overlooked are small groups within a community, established for specific interests such as sewing circles, hunting and fishing clubs, book clubs, language study groups, motorcycle clubs, hiking and walking clubs, bird watching clubs, coin collecting clubs, garden clubs, and sports clubs.

     Strategic nonviolent struggle requires both the control over sources of power and the active participation of the population. Organizations contain the sources of power and provide the structures for collective actions.

     Next; Obedience of the citizens is critical to the survival of any regime.  

                                 Chapter Three

                                  OBEDIENCE

     Obedience is at “the heart of political power.” A ruler cannot rule if the people do not obey. It is this insight upon which strategies for nonviolent struggle are based.

     If our purpose is to motivate the public to withdraw its consent to be ruled by dictators or other authoritarian regimes, we should first understand why people are obedient in the first place.

Habit

     The reason most people obey is the habit of obedience. We are accustomed to obeying those in authority.

     […]Those of us who are addicted to tobacco know what a habit is like. We don’t know how many cigarettes we smoke, can’t recall when we smoked them, and don’t quit smoking when the price has risen to absurd levels.

     To break this or any habit, including obedience to authority, we must make a deliberate decision to quit, constantly reminding ourselves of that decision, and reiterating why it is important to break the habit.

Fear of Sanctions

      Fear of punishment for disobedience is another reason why people obey. When we violate the law, the power of the state can be brought against us. […]The purpose of sanctions is to punish the offender and/or deter others from disobeying the same or a similar law.

     A tyrant depends more upon fear of sanctions to insure obedience than do rulers who have the willing support of the public.

     I don’t see any point in linking to a particular diary on the sanctions issue, as there seems to have been a never ending string of diaries and newspaper articles on this subject.

Self-interest

     We should not condemn everyone who supports an unpopular government out of self-interest. Each person has his own reasons for doing so. Many believe there is no alternative. Our challenge is [to] demonstrate that it may be in their self-interest to disobey.

Moral Obligation

     A sense of moral obligation to obey is common in every society. […] Sometimes we may even feel that the common good is best served by obeying a hated ruler because we don’t believe an alternative would make life any better.

     Joseph Stalin was clearly a tyrant. Yet, millions of people obeyed him because obedience was considered to be in the common interest of society. […] We see peer pressure as a reflection of this moral obligation to obey.

     Keep this in mind–peer pressure works both ways and can be a useful tool in changing patterns of behavior.

Superhuman Factors

     Sometimes rulers are given a superman image or a god-like character. When a ruler is perceived as being all-powerful or is perceived as being the personification of a religion, it is almost inconceivable to think about disobeying that ruler. […]

      This deification of the leaders has had a long history. For centuries, people accepted the concept of “god-kings” and the “divine right of kings.”

     Another variant of this divine rule approach is the 20th century fusion of religion and the state in Iran. To counter this factor of obedience, we need to speak the truth–man is not all-powerful nor is the ruler an agent of God.

     Here’s one by sybil , Did God Tell Bush To Go To War?
     And of course, we’re all well aware of the fundamentalists desire to facilitate a  “20th century fusion of religion and the state.”

Psychological Identification with the Rulers

     Some people view their rulers as an extension of their own family. In somewhat the same way supporters of a soccer team experience joy when their team wins or sorrow when the team loses, a ruler becomes an extension of the individual.

     This is especially true if people and the ruler come through a difficult experience together […] If this familial extension is a factor in a person’s obedience, a convincing case must be made that such an identification with the ruler is no longer justified.

      Nine-eleven… need I say more?

Zone of Indifference

     Some people may profess an indifference to most, if not all, laws that can even remotely be expected to impinge upon their daily lives.

     They obey simply because not to do so seems more trouble than it is worth. For most, that may be a reasonable assumption regarding most laws.

     Problems can arise, however, when laws restricting basic rights and freedom intrude into this comfort zone of indifference.

     It is the task of the democratic opposition to alert the public that indifference to this intrusion is no longer appropriate since it contributes to the enslavement of society as individual freedoms are eroded by increasingly subtle restrictions that are imposed upon the public.

Absence of Self-Confidence

     For a variety of reasons, some people lack confidence in themselves, their judgment or even their ability to make themselves capable of resistance or disobedience. […]

     Perhaps some people think that their rulers are more qualified than they are to make decisions. Importantly for a resistance movement, they may feel they cannot successfully defy the government or participate in their own liberation.

     Restoring the public’s confidence in its ability to pass judgment on the actions of the rulers and then to act on those judgments is critical to the success of nonviolent struggle. Sometimes, what we think of as “indifference” may well be an absence of self-confidence.              

Summary

     We have just examined several reasons why people obey their rulers. They [these reasons] provide a rebuttal to the argument that it is “natural” to be obedient.

     Human beings are not genetically pre-disposed to be submissive. Obedience is primarily a combination of habits, fear and interests–and habits and interests can be changed and fear can be overcome.

     And I repeat once again for emphasis:

     Obedience is at “the heart of political power.” A ruler cannot rule if the people do not obey. It is this insight upon which strategies for nonviolent struggle are based.

     If our purpose is to motivate the public to withdraw its consent to be ruled by dictators or other authoritarian regimes, we should first understand why people are obedient in the first place.

     I sincerely believe the methods of  nonviolent struggle are our only real hope of changing government policies and ultimately changing the leadership of our government to one that truly represents “we the people”, and not only “we the people” of our country  but “we the people” globally.

     I hope we will invest our time wisely in pursuit of a true democracy for our country.  We can not wait until another Martin Luther King, a Gandhi, or Lech Walensa appears on the scene. It is up to us!!!

     I expect that Part III of this series of diaries will cover Mechanisms and Methods of Nonviolent Struggle.

     Stay “tuned” to BoomanTribune, and don’t forget to do your homework, the survival of our republic’s democracy depends on it.

Eagle Dream

Eagle Dream

This morning I had this dream. And yes, this comes from a real dream rather than being a short story that I’ve created.  It went something like this;

My memory of the dream starts with a baby eagle. I’m supposed to look after it. It clings to my hair as I hike along with a group of backpackers… seemed like six to eight people. Many days go by on the trail. The eagle is growing day by day.

One day a part of our group balks at continuing on the trail. (I think it was a safety issue.) But for whatever reason the splinter group refuses to go on, until some of those ahead realize we are missing. I hadn’t made up my mind yet whether to stay or go on.

We who have stayed behind are being told that we have no choice, that we must go on.  The one who is speaking convinces us of the necessity of getting back on the trail. More days on the trail. The eagle is still growing, still hanging around me.

Until one day I realize the eagle is missing. How long has it been missing? It realize now it has left me for brief periods of time, but never for a day, or two days. I think it’s been two days, so I reverse direction on the trail and go back to where I had been.

Approaching the area of two days back, I see this hawk sized bird breaking for a landing on my head.  He’s coming straight at me from the front. The eagle is so much bigger now that the fright of the possibility of it landing on me shocks me awake.

End of Eagle Dream

I know people in my home community who had dreams prior to Kennedy/Dallas. And I recall that there were people nationally who had dreams prior to Dallas.

I have dreams, but I don’t normally have dreams about eagles. So I’m curious. Anyone else having dreams that they feel are relevant to our current events and our reactions to them.

There is nothing below the fold, but our future, yet to be written.      

Anti-abortion Activist Posts Clinic Visitors Pictures

and the license plates of cars driven by people entering the clinic.

See Activist posts clinic visitors’ pictures
Mike Nowatzki, The Forum

An anti-abortion activist who is banned from going within 150 feet of the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo is now posting pictures on the Web of women entering the clinic.

[…]
Jennifer Ring, director of ACLU of the Dakotas, said she couldn’t recall hearing of a similar Web site, but there have been numerous tactics used to identify clinic staff in other parts of the country. Those instances “can get very scary, very quickly,” she said, because staff have been threatened and even killed in the past.

Ring said Thursday was the first time she’d seen the site, and she would consult with an attorney about its legality.

“My first instinct is as disgusting as it is and as dangerous as it is, it’s probably legal,” she said.

[…]

I have no clue how best to deal with this insanity that seems to increase exponentially week by week. Maybe someone can come up with an “innovative way” to contribute to the “education” of this loony?

Effective Counter Attack; Consideration or Implosion?

     Consideration or Implosion? Pick one!    

     The women and men of Boomantribune are calling for an effective counter attack.  Well, I know of no better method of developing an effective counter attack than a method that would use the principles and links discussed below the fold of this diary.

     But before we get into that I’d like to make some preliminary comments;

     Progressive Implosion? Well, what the hell else would you call an opposition movement that seems to be collapsing in on itself?

     Think about it folks. Think about all the diaries and comments you’ve read over these past several weeks.

     Think about;

     The Disappeared bloggers, Long-time bloggers gone on sabbatical, Upset formerly-active bloggers lurking-only, Active bloggers commenting less frequently, and another 3000 members prefer “read only”… (no doubt many of them would have some wisdom to add if’n it wasn’t for the blog-quicksands .)

    I ask you  WTF ever happened to CONSIDERATION?

    Tell me. Where did it go?

     Since it appears that we’re headed into some very rough waters, in nearly all aspects of our lives, IMO we are going to have to start cutting each other some slack.

     So when the next huge divisive controversy hits, let’s just try to have a little CONSIDERATION for each other.

     `Cause as our very own suskind said here the other day, Also I ask myself often, “Since when is your best not good enough?”  Since never.

     Well, we’re all trying our best, aren’t we?

     Why not keep our focus on the task at hand;

     Either we frog march’m out, or, if not, then we’d better be working on changing their point of view.

     While I remain engaged in party politics locally, it seems doubtful that our near total reliance on party politics is going to be productive.

     I see no guarantee that the momentum of this current administration will be derailed by focusing on political activism alone, regardless of whether we have wins or losses in ’06, or ’08.  

     Every day more news arrives that tends to convince me that we’re several rungs up the ladder of fascism, rather than on the first couple of rungs. (Someone suggested a fascism-clock; I say, Yes, let’s set one up, NOW.)

     I SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

       Never, have I seen such an intense level of disgust, both on blog and off, with our existing political leaders.

     The Alito campaign clarified for nearly everyone I know that we have a near total vacuum of leadership at the national level of the Democrat party.

     Originally, I thought the campaign to block Alito was a wonderful idea. But after such a tremendous expenditure of energy and emotion, what are we left with but a loss of confidence in our leadership and a loss of confidence in our own power to affect a change in what’s left of our democracy.    

     It seems obvious that any movement will lose strength if it does not have some success once in a while. Why don’t we work on developing a more viable plan, one that has possibilities of generating confidence-building results.

   So, “What in the hell else can we do?” you say.

     Well, we have yet to seriously consider coordinating a Martin Luther King/Gandhi/Lech Walensa  type movement.

     And believe me, I’m certainly not so foolish as to imply that any particular tactic the aforementioned leaders used would necessarily be applicable to the difficulties we face today.

     But from a study of the material referenced below it seems fairly obvious that the weaknesses in governmental structure, which allowed their movements to succeed, are very similar today.

     And there’s no doubt Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Lech Walensa were just as innovative in their day, as we will need to be  now, under the current threat to democracy.

     In fact we have advantages now that they didn’t have, such as our ability to communicate and disseminate via internet, cell phones, podcasts, etc.  

     The movements of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Lech Walensa were able to encompass a wide variety of political persuasions.

     So there’s no reason why everyone, from left of Democrats, Democrats, center Democrats, DINOs, Independents, Libertarians, and possibly even some moderate Republicans can’t participate in a plan to influencing the policies of this administration.

     We have much more power at our disposal than we are allowing ourselves to believe that we have.

     Please give democracy a chance, continue below the fold;

     Sources of power are identified as residing among the people throughout society, with the power holder able to exercise only that power that the people permit.

     In other words, the ruler can only rule with the consent and cooperation of the people […]

     …the important point of the pluralistic model of power is that, since the people provide the ruler with the sources of his power, then the people can also withdraw their consent to be ruled by withholding the sources of power they collectively provide to the regime.

 — Robert L Helvey On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Thinking About the Fundamentals.

[All text in boxes from the above source. Robert L Helvey is a protégé of Gene Sharp]

Note: I could not find Helvey’s book at Powell’s, so use link above if you’d like to order. The link is not the pdf download but the pdf is available there.

     There will always be ideals worth fighting for and oppression to be overcome. Some issues may not be resolvable through negotiations alone, but armed struggle may not be a viable option for an oppressed society, as the state often has the monopoly on military and other instruments of political coercion.

    This does not mean that the oppressed people must then choose between submission and waging an armed struggle where defeat is nearly certain.

    There is a third alternative to armed conflict for the pursuit of political change – strategic nonviolent struggle.  

In the book,  strategic nonviolent struggle means:

    Nonviolent struggle that has been applied according to a strategic plan that has been prepared on the basis of an analysis of the conflict situation, the strengths and weaknesses of the contending groups, the nature, capacities and requirements of the technique of nonviolent action, and especially the strategic principles of that type of struggle. 1

1 Gene Sharp,  There Are Realistic Alternatives, (Boston: The Albert Einstein Institution, 2003),38

     As you will see, the nonviolent struggle concepts that Gene Sharp has developed,  may be applied with effect against authoritarian regimes, as well as democracies such as Venezuela.

      The fact that our military and CIA have made use of these techniques should verify for you the value of their effectiveness.

      The end result of the Oct 2004 election in the Ukraine is a recent example of the power of nonviolent  struggle. See Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution”

      Our government and various institutions were involved, see   Alleged involvement of outside forces

     This book is written with hope that it may be of assistance to those who are searching for or examining nonviolent options as an alternative to armed struggle against an oppressive government or foreign occupation.

    It is not a “how to” book on waging nonviolent struggle.
    Rather, it offers a framework that encourages orderly thinking about the fundamentals of strategic nonviolent opposition to state tyranny.

     It includes information on the theory, strategic planning, and operations for waging strategic nonviolent struggle that has proved to be effective. […]

     …experience has shown that nonviolent struggle is an effective means of waging conflict against repressive regimes.

     A military victory is achieved by destroying the opponent’s capacity and/or willingness to continue the fight.

     In this regard, nonviolent strategy is no different from armed conflict, except that very different weapons systems are employed.

[…]

     The starting gate for the application of strategic nonviolent struggle fundamentals is thinking about those fundamentals, and this book not only addresses them but also challenges the reader to think about applying these fundamentals for a particular cause.

     Unlike an aircraft flight manual, there is no check list here that must be followed. Instead, there is a “check list” of ideas and suggestions to guide one’s thinking in making a transition form a dictatorship to a democracy.

[…]

     … I met Dr. [Gene] Sharp during a meeting of the Program for Nonviolent Sanctions. He introduced his subject with the words: “Strategic nonviolent struggle is about seizing political power or denying it to others. It is not about pacifism, moral or religious beliefs.”

     These words got my attention since my perception of “nonviolence” had been one influenced by Vietnam ere “flower-children, peacenik and draft dodgers.”

[…]

     I was fortunate to hear a local presentation given in the early eighties by Gene Sharp, not long after the success of Solidarity led by Lech Wałęsa.

     It was then that it occurred to me that these nonviolent concepts might one day prove applicable to, ah, well, any country.

Chapter One: Theory of Political Power

     Political power is the totality of means, influences, and pressures–including authority, rewards, and sanction–available to achieve the objectives of the power-holder, especially those of government, the state, and those groups in oppositions.
                                  –Dr Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action

[The Politics of Nonviolent Action  is available at Powell’s (BT link)]

[…]

     …When the needle on a continuum between “freedom and tyranny” (admittedly subjective terms) points strongly toward tyranny, there will be a desire for change be those who are oppressed.

     What changes and how change will be attempted depend upon the oppressed people’s understanding of the nature and sources of power.

     Dr Sharp describes two models to describe the basis for power in society–one monolithic, the other pluralistic.

The Monolithic Theory of Power

     One model to explain political power, described by Dr. Gene Sharp,  is referred to as the “monolithic” theory. […] It portrays power as being centered at the top of a solid, unchanging power structure [see Figure 1].
     Occupiers of power portrayed by this monolithic model may change for any number of reasons, but the structure of power itself, that is, its pyramidal shell, is fixed as if in granite, irrespective of the power mix within or the will to change from without.

    This theory assumes that the people are dependent upon the good will, support and decisions of the power holder and that the ruler determines how this power is to t be exercised. examples of despotic rulers who viewed election rigging as an integral part of the election process.

[…]

     Authoritarian regimes are comfortable when their public accepts (or acquiesces under pressure to) this monolithic conceptualization of power.

     The mere fact that they hold power gives them the authority to rule and dictates the obligation of the people to submit, the desires of the ruled notwithstanding.

   The coercive power of the state under this model is viewed as a primary and legitimate means of enforcing compliance.

[…]

     To undermine and remove tyranny through nonviolent conflict, one must move beyond the conceptual bounds of the monolithic power structure to identify and assess the actual distribution of power in all its forms.

    While the monolithic model of power is a useful analytical tool to the study of how despots obtain, hold and pass the reins of power, using this model as a guide to thinking about political change places a severe limitation on the options that can be considered.

    While it is important for “dreamers of change” to be aware of the monolithic model of power, in order to convert dreams into action they will find more success by substituting a model that views power, its attainment, and its loss in a completely different light–as one with “pluralism” as its guiding feature.

     I see it as a huge mistake to limit our thinking to the monolithic model of power.

     I agree with the author, Robert L Helvey, that an opposition movement is not likely to be successful at influencing government policy or affecting political change without an understanding of the pluralistic model of power.

The Pluralistic Model of Power

     Another helpful model to understand the nature of power is referred to by Dr. Sharp as the pluralistic model [See Figure 2] Unlike the monolithic model, a solid, unchanging structure with power concentrated at the top,  this theory portrays political power as being pluralistic and fragile.

     Sources of power are identified as residing among the people throughout society, with the power holder able to exercise only that power that the people permit.

    In other words, the ruler can only rule with the consent and cooperation of the people.[…]

    …the important point of the pluralistic model of power is that, since the people provide the ruler with the sources of his power, then the people can also withdraw their consent to be ruled by withholding the sources of power they collectively provide to the regime.

     According to Dr. Sharp there are six sources of power that are the key to understanding its pluralistic nature. As will be discussed below, it is these enumerated sources of power over which control, substantial influence, or neutralization is sought. […]

     If you are interested in understanding how sources of power form the pillars that support any government, see the discussion of the six sources of power after the fold:

[…] These sources of power find expression in organizations and institutions, called “pillars of support”, discussed in Chapter 2.

Note: subject to be discussed in next diary  Pillars of Support

1.Authority

     Authority is the basis for claiming the right to rule and for the demanding of obedience from the ruled. Election results are often cited as the validation of authority to govern.

     This is why so many authoritarian regimes insist on holding elections and then stuff the ballot boxes, intimidate the electorate, limit the campaign activities of opponents, and refuse to acknowledge or accept unfavorable outcomes.

     Legitimacy is critically important to any government, and to be perceived as exceeding constitutional authority or being an outlaw regime has potentially serious consequences both internally and within the international community.

     Internally, the loss of apparent legitimacy may become a major factor for the legitimization of political opposition.

     Using the concept of “social contract,” political opposition may proclaim that if the government has committed a material breach of the constitution of a nation, the contract between the people and government has been violated, providing the basis for renouncing  the obligations to obey, support and cooperate with the regime.

     Externally, the loss of legitimacy by a regime may make the international community receptive to calls for economic and political sanctions against it. […]

2. Human Resources

     The numbers of people who support, cooperate with, and yield to the ruler are an important determinant of a regime’s power. […]

     …strategic nonviolent struggle cannot succeed without their active support and cooperation of the majority. In a struggle for democracy, numbers are important!

3. Skills and Knowledge

     Governing is much more complicated then ever. At the beginning of the 21st century, the President of the United States of America is widely accepted as being the most powerful person in the world.

     Yet, this most powerful ruler knows little or nothing

That’s for damn sure!!! (Continuing…)

     about the complicated tasks of maintaining airplanes and flight schedules, administering maritime law, conducting criminal investigations, collecting taxes, developing war plans, distributing food, developing and servicing communications networks, and a host of other proficiencies.

     The point being that skills and knowledge provided by the people permit governments, at all levels, to function. Without such contributions, a government collapses.

4. Intangible Factors

     While it is difficult to measure their importance, intangible factors such as religion, attitudes toward obedience and submission, a sense of mission, or cultural norms can affect a ruler’s relationship with the public.

     For example, there was a period in which there was an acceptance by many in some societies of the “divine right of kings,” the belief that rulers were agents of God on earth.

     To disobey the ruler was thought to be disobedient to God. In other societies, such as Japan, the Emperor was considered to be God-king. Democracy would have been impossible under those circumstances.

     And at the turn of the 21st century, there were instances of the merging of the Islamic religion and traditional political power in some governments.

     While it is entirely  appropriate to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” the debate must first be held over what exactly belongs to him.

     After all, democracy is predicated upon the belief that any power the ruler has is “on loan” from the people.

Did the concepts discussed above remind you of any recent US history?

5. Material Resources

     “He who pays the piper calls the tune” most certainly applies to politics. Control over the economy, property, natural resources, communications and transportation is an important aspect of the limits of power over the public. […]

     …where censorship prevails, the lives of all those involved in all aspects of journalism are controlled or influenced by the government.
[…]

6. Sanctions

     The ability to coerce compliance and support for government laws, including rules and regulations, is limited by the support, cooperation and acquiescence of the public.

     Sanctions are used both to punish and to deter unacceptable behavior. …Denial or termination of employment, loss of promotions, travel restrictions (denial of passport), imposition of “eminent domain” of property, denial of access to water, and other sanctions can all be effectively employed to promote submission.

     In some authoritarian regimes, the media practices self-censorship because the government has the capacity to close down publishers and news organizations through the control of the distribution of newsprint or the revocation of radio and television licenses. Such sanctions are commonplace.

     Sanctions are the tools of every government. Most often they are used to curb anti-social behavior. At other times, they have been used as weapons to terrorize and to punish populations for political ends. […]

Summary

     …The monolithic model portrays power as being exercised in an unchanging structure in which the people are dependent on the ruler.

     The pluralistic model sees power being exercised quite differently, with the ruler being dependent upon the people.

     The sources of power that the people provide to a ruler are also identified, and should these sources of power be withheld from the ruler, his ability to govern would be impossible.

     Descriptively, the various structures that permit and sustain the day-to-day operations of government are referred to as its “pillars of support”. […]

     When important pillars of support are sufficiently undermined, the government …collapses   […]

     I sincerely believe the methods of  nonviolent struggle are our only real hope of changing government policies and ultimately changing the leadership of our government to one that truly represents “we the people”,  and not only “we the people” of our country  but “we the people” globally.

    I hope we will invest our time wisely in pursuit of a true democracy for our country.  We can not wait until another Martin Luther King, a Gandhi, or Lech Walensa appears on the scene. It is up to us!!!

Fargo: Sen Conrad, "massive budget cuts 2007"

     Fargo, North Dakota  February 23, 2006

    Last night the “Friends of Kent Conrad” hosted a reception for Senator Kent Conrad at Stoker’s, an intimate, ultra-hip wine and cordial bar located in the basement of the Hotel Donaldson

     Thanks to “Friends of Kent Conrad” for the four Pacificos, and the buffet of snacks. The reception was very informal. Probably about 30 people attended and anyone who wanted to could walk up and have a relatively private chat with the Senator. During my chat time, I visited with the Senator about a member of his family.

     Later, after his presentation, I asked the first question. “Is war with Iran inevitable.” Sen Conrad gave a fairly long answer. He said he’d thought our focus on Iraq had been wrong from the beginning, (he voted against going to war), and that we should have been focused on Iran. He said he wasn’t expecting much help on Iran from the French. [ha? ha?] But he felt that the Russians were making a significant contribution to resolving that situation. He ended by specifically saying that he did not think that war with Iran was inevitable.  

     Besides Senator Conrad we had a few other dignitaries at Stoker’s;

     On the left, Ed Schultz, of The Ed Schultz Show and on the right,   Roger Johnson ,  ND Agriculture Commissioner, and the only Democrat currently holding an office in ND state government.


larger

     Ed Shultz asked Senator Conrad if he was going to invite Dick Cheney to ND for a pheasant hunt.  Much laughter! I think Sen. Conrad said, “Yeah, don’t forget to duck!”

     On the voting machine issue he recommended that everyone vote absentee ballots.

     At the Radisson Hotel, Senator Conrad  spoke before a crowd of a couple hundred, a Prairie Progressives Town Hall Event. Here he did a power point presentation on Bush’s FY 2007 Budget,  deficits, and debt. The numbers and the implications for the future are staggering. If you think social programs have taken a severe hit these past several years, you’re going to be in for a surprise as it appears there will be numerous programs eliminated completely, or cut severely. We’ve just got to preserve that 41 Billion dollar tax cut for those make more than a million per year, right???

     Senator Conrad -“… there will be massive budget cuts…with the intention of shredding Social Security and Medicare… it’s stunning what’s been proposed.  
And he mentioned that he’d been called in for a private chat with President Bush, (no staff present), and that he’d discussed budget and finance issues with the president for 1.5 hrs. And at the end of the conversation Sen. Conrad said that he had concluded that Bush just didn’t have a clue. He said it was just like Alfred E. Neuman, “What me worry?”
     Sen. Conrad’s conclusion; Bush is short of horsepower.

     See more comments and links for that information below the fold:::


BUSH FY 2007 BUDGET: MORE DEFICITS AND DEBT

     The nation needed a new budget plan this year, a dramatic and bold acknowledgment from the Bush administration that we need to put our fiscal house back in order. Instead, we got more of the same – more deficits, more debt, and more hiding of our true fiscal condition from the American people.

     The President’s new budget is nothing new. It represents the same reckless fiscal course the administration has followed for the last five years. It explodes deficits, but then conceals them by providing only five years of numbers and leaving out large costs, like long-term Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) reform and realistic ongoing war costs. The result will be more debt passed on to our children and grandchildren.

     From all indications the FY 2007 budget will be devastating for many people. In the FY 2007 Budget,  Funding for Vocational Education will be eliminated, funding for Upward Bound will be eliminated, Rural Health Care cut 83%, etc. For more details see this  9 page pdf download on Bush’s FY 2007 Budget

     If you don’t feel like reading a lot of text see these very nicely done charts that illustrate the debt and deficit aspects of Bush’s FY 2007 Budget,  on this  7 page pdf file, Charts Used in Press Conference on Bush FY 2007 Budget – Feb. 6, 2006

     The following is a 9 page pdf file of Sen. Conrad’s Remarks at Press Conference on Bush FY 2007 Budget – Feb. 6, 2006

     The question was asked on when the Democrats at the national level would be coming out with their plan. Sen. Conrad said that was not likely until some time in September. The strategy being to keep the focus on the Republicans’ failures, in order to further decrease the public’s respect for this administration, rather than have the media focusing on what’s likely to be a great brouhaha once the Democrat plan is presented.

     His rational on that strategy seemed to make sense at the time of my hearing it. I still think the leadership  at the national level needs to show some spine somewhere in order to keep some hope alive at the grass roots level.

     I’ve come to the conclusion that I’ve just got to let Senator Conrad’s vote on Alito go, and move on. There is no likelihood of a viable third party at the state level here, so that is not really an option for me, if I want to continue to remain involved politically.

     I have a great many personal friends who I have been involved with for more than a couple of decades who remain active in the North Dakota Democrat-NonPartisan League. So I guess I will continue to take this wild ride with them.

Live Not By Lies — by jimstaro xpost from ET

I thought Bootribbers might appreciate this diary of jimstaro’s in which he includes the full text of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s essay Live Not By Lies which seems to me to resonate with current events here in the US. Let’s see that our situation does not deteriorate to the conditions under which Solzhenitsyn lived. – NDD

[cross posted from European Tribune, with permission of author European Tribune; Live Not By Lies – by jimstaro]

Thu Feb 16th, 2006 at 05:31:01 PM CST
As you read this, think about the Author, many of us remember, think about the country he was from, many of us remember, think about What Is Happening Now Within Our Own Country as to Domestic and Foreign Policies quickly going the way of  Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Country!!
I could add a looooong list of that which is going on, that which has taken place, that which we suspect and slowly the proofs are brought to light.
But why, many of us already know, or suspect, and are fighting to bring sanity back from the abyss before it completely disappears along with our freedoms and rights!!

Following is the full text of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s essay “Live Not By Lies.” It is perhaps the last thing he wrote on his native soil [before the collapse of the Soviet Union] and circulated among Moscow’s intellectuals [at that time]. The essay is dated Feb. 12, the day that secret police broke into his apartment and arrested him. The next day he was exiled to West Germany.
Live Not By Lies-Alexander Solzhenitsyn
As printed in The Washington Post, p. A26
Monday, February 18, 1974

At one time we dared not even to whisper. Now we write and read samizdat, and sometimes when we gather in the smoking room at the Science Institute we complain frankly to one another: What kind of tricks are they playing on us, and where are they dragging us? gratuitous boasting of cosmic achievements while there is poverty and destruction at home. Propping up remote, uncivilized regimes. Fanning up civil war. And we recklessly fostered Mao Tse-tung at our expense– and it will be we who are sent to war against him, and will have to go. Is there any way out? And they put on trial anybody they want and they put sane people in asylums–always they, and we are powerless.
Things have almost reached rock bottom. A universal spiritual death has already touched us all, and physical death will soon flare up and consume us both and our children–but as before we still smile in a cowardly way and mumble without tounges tied. But what can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength?
We have been so hopelessly dehumanized that for today’s modest ration of food we are willing to abandon all our principles, our souls, and all the efforts of our predecessors and all opportunities for our descendants–but just don’t disturb our fragile existence. We lack staunchness, pride and enthusiasm. We don’t even fear universal nuclear death, and we don’t fear a third world war. We have already taken refuge in the crevices. We just fear acts of civil courage.
We fear only to lag behind the herd and to take a step alone-and suddenly find ourselves without white bread, without heating gas and without a Moscow registration.
We have been indoctrinated in political courses, and in just the same way was fostered the idea to live comfortably, and all will be well for the rest of our lives. You can’t escape your environment and social conditions. Everyday life defines consciousness. What does it have to do with us? We can’t do anything about it?
But we can–everything. But we lie to ourselves for assurance. And it is not they who are to blame for everything-we ourselves, only we. One can object: But actually toy can think anything you like. Gags have been stuffed into our mouths. Nobody wants to listen to us and nobody asks us. How can we force them to listen? It is impossible to change their minds.
It would be natural to vote them out of office-but there are not elections in our country. In the West people know about strikes and protest demonstrations-but we are too oppressed, and it is a horrible prospect for us: How can one suddenly renounce a job and take to the streets? Yet the other fatal paths probed during the past century by our bitter Russian history are, nevertheless, not for us, and truly we don’t need them.
Now that the axes have done their work, when everything which was sown has sprouted anew, we can see that the young and presumptuous people who thought they would make out country just and happy through terror, bloody rebellion and civil war were themselves misled. No thanks, fathers of education! Now we know that infamous methods breed infamous results. Let our hands be clean!
The circle–is it closed? And is there really no way out? And is there only one thing left for us to do, to wait without taking action? Maybe something will happen by itself? It will never happen as long as we daily acknowledge, extol, and strengthen–and do not sever ourselves from–the most perceptible of its aspects: Lies.
When violence intrudes into peaceful life, its face glows with self-confidence, as if it were carrying a banner and shouting: “I am violence. Run away, make way for me–I will crush you.” But violence quickly grows old. And it has lost confidence in itself, and in order to maintain a respectable face it summons falsehood as its ally–since violence lays its ponderous paw not every day and not on every shoulder. It demands from us only obedience to lies and daily participation in lies–all loyalty lies in that.
And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.
This opens a breach in the imaginary encirclement caused by our inaction. It is the easiest thing to do for us, but the most devastating for the lies. Because when people renounce lies it simply cuts short their existence. Like an infection, they can exist only in a living organism.
We do not exhort ourselves. We have not sufficiently matured to march into the squares and shout the truth our loud or to express aloud what we think. It’s not necessary.
It’s dangerous. But let us refuse to say that which we do not think.
This is our path, the easiest and most accessible one, which takes into account out inherent cowardice, already well rooted. And it is much easier–it’s dangerous even to say this–than the sort of civil disobedience which Gandhi advocated.
Our path is to talk away fro the gangrenous boundary. If we did not paste together the dead bones and scales of ideology, if we did not sew together the rotting rags, we would be astonished how quickly the lies would be rendered helpless and subside.
That which should be naked would then really appear naked before the whole world.
So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood–of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies–or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.
And from that day onward he:
Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth.
Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question.
Will immediately talk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed.
Of course we have not listed all of the possible and necessary deviations from falsehood. But a person who purifies himself will easily distinguish other instances with his purified outlook.
No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.
But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.
And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul- don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views,a dn don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general–let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.
Even this path, which is the most modest of all paths of resistance, will not be easy for us. But it is much easier than self-immolation or a hunger strike: The flames will not envelope your body, your eyeballs, will not burst from the heat, and brown bread and clean water will always be available to your family.
A great people of Europe, the Czhechoslovaks, whom we betrayed and deceived: Haven’t they shown us how a vulnerable breast can stand up even against tanks if there is a worthy heart within it?
You say it will not be easy? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. Not, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.
So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.
If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. let us then bow down even more, let us wail, and out brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.
And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:
“Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?
“Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.”

—-
©1974 Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Digitized and formatted in HTML by The Augustine Club at Columbia University, 2001
Columbia EDU Augustine  
augustine@columbia.edu
Last update: August 5, 2001