people suggesting violence is inevitable are not on your side; do not be pulled into a battlefield that guarantees a tyrant's victory

did y'all just like "forget" that trump let down all the barriers protecting us from outside political influence? these people are steering you into terror and bad choices. stop.

Neighbors, be watchful of people on this and other social media platforms who are casting doubts on our already wildly successful, still-emerging nonviolent civil resistance. Ask yourselves WHY these people peddle war stories. The why is obvious: countless studies have shown us—the world over—that when protectors “take the bait” and respond with violence, we lose. We have seen every single pro-democracy movement that was goaded into violence fail. In contrast, every time we remain committed to nonviolent civil resistance, we hold the upper hand and become ungovernable to despots, who need mass obedience to gain legitimacy.

So let me be very clear: I am suspicious of people who prematurely suggest civilian bloodshed is inevitable. These are dangerous stories that not only lead us into peril but into a losing strategy. Remember, for god’s sake, that there are antidemocratic trolls on social media drumming up this discontent, because they know if WE blink and use violence, the fascists will remain in power.

Civil resistance works, and it is not only folly but it is immoral to recommend or suggest civil warfare, given the impact such actions will have on our children, elderly people, our already fragile ecosystem, our international neighbors, and the future of our democracy. Remember that we judge trees by the fruit they bear; violence forces us onto an uneven terrain where we will fall.

Nonviolent civil resistance has consistently proven to be the most effective and fastest way to topple a tyrant. Do not let these people steer you off course, dammit. That is why the trolls are on here: to bait you into foolhardy choices that lead to peril and moral collapse. Block them. Carry on. Hold fast to each other.

You wanna win? You have to beef up on nonviolent civil resistance.

You don’t have to take my word for it: there’s a veritable treasure trove [https://www.aeinstein.org/digital-library] of resources detailing how other nations, including ours, have fought back against tyranny. For starers, check out Peter Altman’s indispensable Checklist to End Tyranny. Better yet start a discussion group in your neighborhood and invite people to share a meal and discuss it, chapter by chapter, and make a plan for how to roll our real resistance where you’re at.

Update: Because I’ve Gotten Some Pushback from Advocates of Violent Protest & Want to Address it

Neighbors, anyone calling for violence in response to this regime is either being manipulated by the outrage machine, white-knuckling it through PTSD, or is manipulating YOU to try to get to you condone or accept violence. Violence is a trap, and it always has been a trap, because it empowers dictatorships.

This is also not me disrespecting veterans. First, no veteran worth their salt is using these internet streets to recommend violent uprising. Real patriots have discernment; people who have seen the horrors of war on a domestic population know exactly what that nightmare is and would never choose to unleash warrior cosplay on their neighbors. Veterans, like all civilians, have always been welcome to attend events and demonstrations. And across the globe honorable veterans in the face of tyrants have intentionally volunteered to serve as an unarmed guard for civilian demonstrators, and doing so can be effective because of the stark moral optics it creates and the positive effect it can have on would-be defectors currently taking illegal orders from a dictator.

And again, you don’t have to take my word for it, but you damn well should take the word of people who have spent their lives studying and working with nonviolent resistance groups the world over. As soon as violence starts, movements disintegrate, violent state repression increases, and dictatorships consolidate power.

Here’s Pete Ackerman, from Checklist to End Tyranny, talking about why violent resistance harms social movements [boldface mine]:

If access to many different tactics creates a strategic advantage for the resisters, then some may ask, “Why not add a discreet set of violent tactics into the mix?” This argument often arises when the nonviolent conflict seems to have temporarily lost momentum and frustration is growing. For this reason, all pro-democracy activists need to be convinced of the superiority of campaigns of civil resistance versus violent insurrection and must be prepared to argue and defend that point.

However, in some cases a civil resistance movement maintains commitment to nonviolent discipline but a violent group or insurgency arises outside the movement and begins to engage in violence alongside the movement. What then? Can this dynamic contribute to the nonviolent movement’s chances of success?

Some argue yes because violent groups make pro-democracy activists seem reasonable and that the threat of violence scares the authorities into making concessions to more “moderate” civil resisters. However, this argument is not borne out by history. Scholars Erica Chenoweth and Kurt Schock conducted research on 106 nonviolent campaigns between 1900 and 2006 that sought a fundamental change in government. In none of these cases could they find evidence of a positive effect for a civil resistance movement coexisting with active violent groups (which are sometimes referred to as “violent flanks”). Moreover, Chenoweth and Schock did find statistically significant evidence of the negative effects of interacting with a violent flank. For example, the average civil resistance movement with a violent flank was 17 percent smaller than the average civil resistance movement without a violent flank. Because high levels of civilian participation are a key factor leading to movement success, violent flanks indirectly reduce the chances to win the conflict.

Chenoweth and Schock also found that the presence of violent flanks strongly correlated with high levels of friction among dissidents. Mixing violent and nonviolent tactics diminishes a movement’s prospects for remaining unified, thereby lowering the chances of winning. Violent flanks also increase the likelihood that pro-democracy activists will be more subject to repression, which depresses participation in the movement and thus further decreases its chances of success.

Chenoweth and Schock’s findings of the incompatibility of violence and civil resistance are not surprising. Violent insurrections and civil resistance campaigns operate with completely contradictory dynamics. Even limited violence will damage the momentum needed to make a campaign of civil resistance effective. This is one reason why tyrants desperately try to provoke people to engage in violence or instigate violence through their use of agents provocateurs (“inciting agents”).

Anyone who argues that a civil resistance campaign needs to be tolerant of allies who want to engage in violence is wrong.

https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Peter-Ackerman-%E2%80%93-The-Checklist-to-End-Tyranny.pdf