The Virtues of a Disorganized Resistance

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by AlterEgo, Nov 19, 2007.


  1. AlterEgo

    AlterEgo Monkey+++

    http://www.etresoi.ch/Denis/disorganisation.html

    The Virtues of a Disorganized Resistance

    A merican opposition movements have always focused on the notion of organization. It has always been their goal to organize the people. Their hope has been to wield the collective power of the disaffected, downtrodden, and exploited as a single unit against the concentrated power of the ruling class. While their hope has been noble, their methods have been foolish. Organized resistance has many drawbacks. These drawbacks have seldom been discussed by the opposition. I believe that the only effective resistance is a completely disorganized, decentralized, and leaderless opposition.
    W hile, on the face of it, this claim may impress you as absurd. Of course it seems absurd! It is counterintuitive. Never the less, it is the ONLY method of resistance that will work within American society. I will explain why organized resistance has never worked in the United States. In addition, I will promulgate a new formula for effective resistance.
    Why has organized resistance failed in the USA?

    T here are many reasons for the failure of organized resistance. The two primary causes of failure are intimately connected to the culture of the United States and the political system laid down by our nation's founding fathers.
    The Cultural Cause

    A mericans, culturally, are anarchists. Few Americans realize this. Most Americans have a false understanding of the term "anarchism." However, upon examining the beliefs of your average American, you will find that most Americans:
    • do not trust leaders
    • do not trust government
    • wish to be left alone
    • value their privacy
    • think of themselves as independent from society
    • do not believe that there is a systemic solution to their problems
    • believe that others should be free to do what they choose, provided they do so in private and do not harm others
    W hile it is undeniable that political culture in the United States often speaks to the opposite of the above list, it is also undeniable that most Americans register as neither Democrat or Republican and most Americans do not vote. Thus, despite the political culture, most Americans choose not to participate in it. This is not only due to their belief that the American political system is hopeless, but also is due to the cultural clash between the wider culture and the political culture.
    A ny attempt to organize large numbers of Americans into a single political movement will fail. Any attempt to create an organization led by a strong group of leaders will fail. Americans reject submersion into the collective. In a sense, Americans are anti-collectivists.
    The Political Cause

    A merican political culture is not ideological. Politicians attempt to draw ideological distinctions between the two major parties, but these distinctions are a matter of splitting hairs. The only significant difference between the two political parties is the degree of compassion represented by the rhetoric of the two parties. Compassion is not a political concept. Compassion is an attitude. Thus, the two parties differ, primarily, in attitude and not ideology.
    [​IMG]
    D espite this, there remain two political parties. One is prompted to ask "why?" If each party is basically the same, with respect to ideology, why do they not merge into one party? The answer to this question is best found in viewing each political party according to its true nature. American political parties are, for all intents and purposes, organized crime units. American political parties have more in common with the Mafia than they have with their counterparts in more democratic societies. Like Mafia, each political party competes for control of territory in order to maximize the benefit to their business constituency. Like Mafia, the political parties attempt to mold the system to maintain their positions and access to resources. Like Mafia, the political parties force the average citizen to pay "protection" under the threat of violence (taxes). Like Mafia each political party uses the "protection" money collected for its own advantage.
    B y defining our political system in terms of the "majority" and the "opposition," our Constitution enshrines this two mafia system into law. Each Mafia passes laws to exclude new comers from the game while focusing the rest of its energy in destroying the other Mafia.
    T hus, any resistance movement that chooses to become an organization is in competition with these Mafiosi. The deck is stacked and the power of the state, wielded by these organized crime units known as the Democratic and Republican parties, will waste the time and resources of any newcomer. A newcomer can only succeed by rejecting the political system, draining its resources, and undermining the rule of the state.
    How is disorganized resistance superior?

    I n some societies, dissidents become heroes. In American society dissidents are systematically slandered, libeled, harassed, and villainized. If they become successful, they are murdered (e.g. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X). In the American experience, movements that look to leaders are decapitated. Leaders are a liability, not an asset.
    O rganizations can be (and are) infiltrated. Organizations can be taxed. Organizations have legal responsibility. Organizations have membership lists and lists are wonderful tools for the oppressor. Organizations take on a life of their own. They struggle to exist and their continued existence takes priority over their mission. Organizations attract opportunists, power mongers, and attention seekers. Organizations tend to exploit their rank and file for the benefit of their inner circle. Disorganizations share none of these defects.
    B ureaucracy cannot comprehend disorganization. Disorganization is invisible. The asymmetry of the relationship between organization and disorganization favors disorganization. Organization depends upon planning. Planning requires predictability. Disorganization cannot be predicted. This leaves organization at a disadvantage.
    O rganization requires a supply chain. Supply chains can be disrupted. Disorganization depends only upon the resources of its members. Supply chains that do not exist cannot be eliminated.
    [​IMG]
    D isorganized movements rely upon swarming. Swarms are difficult to defend against. If you cut a swarm in half, you have two swarms. If you eliminate one of the resulting swarms, you still have a swarm. Disorganization breeds. Organization grows. The many and dispersed are a more difficult target than the large and concentrated.
    O rganizations takes their steps by design. If the design is flawed, the organization fails. Disorganization relies not upon design but upon evolution. The motivating notions of disorganization are memes. Memes evolve and memes compete. This process improves the motivating notions of disorganization. This process produces multiple courses of action. While some may fail, others are likely to succeed. Taken as a whole, disorganization is more likely to succeed.
    T he important thing to remember is that it is easier to destroy than to create that which is designed. Thus, the cost to those who lose the manifestation of their design outweighs by leaps and bounds the cost it takes to destroy it. That which evolves is cheap and when an effort is created to destroy the evolved entity, it merely mutates and evolves again, adjusting to the new conditions. As a process that fosters evolution, a movement based on disorganization will continue to survive, evolve, and expand without cost. The resource constraints placed upon the designed (e.g. government and corporate) and those absent from the evolved (a decentralized and disorganized opposition movement), favor the later.
    The limits of disorganization

    I do not propose a complete absence of organization. Instead I propose a disorganization of units. Units can be as small as a single individual, or as complex as cell of individuals working together. Cells may be internally organized, but they should not be statically organized cell to cell. The movement should have no commander. It should have no central committee or governing body. No global plans should be made. The modus operandi of each unit should be to think globally and act locally. Ideas, strategies, and tactics should float freely and compete as memes within the medium of the collective conscious.
    Conclusions

    [​IMG]
    W e need to construct a disorganized movement. You need not apply to join. In fact, it might be better if you did not contact me, or anyone except those with whom you wish to form a unit. Your ideas, strategies, tactics, and lessons learned should be spread anonymously or by word of mouth. When you act, should you decide to act in resistance, attribute your actions to "the Resistance." The growing din of disorganized disruption will be felt as an earthquake. There will be trembles. There will be pre-shocks. The tension will mount and, in time, there will be an earthquake. When that earthquake strikes, the organized edifice of the oppressor will fall like a house of cards.
     
  2. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    sorta sounds like us, eh?
     
  3. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    [patr][peep] Reads alot like this :
    http://www.civiliandefenseforce.com/leaderlessresistance.html

    Perhaps we should change the subject?[notfunny]:shock::censored:...at this point in time(hr1955???) I fear our freedom to discuss topics like this even in the most abstract academic environment is pretty much over(otoh standing up for and exercising our rights is never without risk).[patr][peep]
    I'm nothing if not "disorganized", ask my wife![lolol]
     
  4. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Those who fear their government to much to speak will fear their government to much to stand, so there would be no need. Those who fear HR1955 would not want to know aboutsuch things anyway.
     
  5. AlterEgo

    AlterEgo Monkey+++

    Well said monkeyman. I see them falling by the wayside every day. Problem is what category do you put them in now. Truth be it two who were heading down the correct (my opinion) path were both stopped by their wives. For that matter one had his wife tell him that he wasn't supposed to hang with me any longer.

    I'm not concerned for my welfare as I keep my cards close. If nothing happens fine, but what is one to do when the other shoe drops and it gets serious.

    AE
     
  6. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    AE, one must act according to his principles. Cowering principles dooms those who fail to act honorably so. May also doom those who act morally, but they will go down standing, not cowering.
     
  7. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    I tried to post this earlier but it wouldn't let me.

    1000 5 man teams are much more of a threat than a 10,000 man army. A 10,000 man army cannot move without everyone knowing about it, a couple of bombing runs and it's pretty well done. Now if a couple of 5 man teams move through a city in broad day light no one will know provided they don't try to look and act like Rambo. A 5 man team can do alot of damage a couple of them would turn even a big city on it's ear.

    HR1955 rally dosen't scare me, I look at it as a possible tipping point. Will people finnaly say enough is enough?? I surely hope so. If not now then when??? When will people decide that they have lost all of the freedoms they are going to tolerate lossing???

    OGM
     
  8. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    I think for most it will not be a matter of 'all they will tolerate loseing' it will be a matter of at what point they decide that there is nothing left to loose. So long as the state allows the people to be fre then the people stand to loose their freedoms if they oppose the state, when the state takes away the peoples freedoms without reguard the people then loose only their lives if they oppose the state and to many merely breathing dose not constitute living therefore with freedom extinguished by the government they stand to loose nothing, not even life for that was lost with their freedom and standing only gives them the opprotunity to recover everything or loose notheing buth the ability to breath.
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7