The most instructive thing about Jensen etc is what it tells us about the resistance movement as a whole. That arguments this intellectually lame and transparently false have broad appeal and are considered by many to be the *creme de la creme* of resistance thinking tells us that we are in deep, deep shit. If this is our best …
For there to be any hope we need many more within the movement to understand and be able to articulate the politics of nonviolence. At the very least to have read and know George Lakey’s “Nonviolent Action as the Sword that Heals<http://www.trainingforchange.org/nonviolent_action_sword_that_heals>.” Even better would be Bill Moyer’s “Doing Democracy<http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/3694>“, better still Gene Sharp’s writings <http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations9173.html> (or these<http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Sharp%2C%20Gene>,) or any works of equal substance.
If there is a cogent, intelligent argument for violent struggle I would love to see it. One that honestly engages the real case for nonviolence and does not build its’ argument on logical fallacies, misrepresentations and cheap rhetorical tricks. If any know of such, please let me know.
I am skeptical that it exists though, since every advocate I meet cites one or more of Ward Churchill’s ‘Pacifism as Pathology<http://www.amazon.com/Pacifism-Pathology-Reflections-Struggle-America/dp/1904859186>‘, Gelderloos’ ‘How Nonviolence Protects the State<http://www.amazon.com/Nonviolence-Protects-State-Peter-Gelderloos/dp/0896087727>‘, and now Jensen’s “Endgame <http://www.endgamethebook.org/index.html>” as the “must reads” for a convincing case.
Convincing? yes! Since all three rely on the same straw man arguments and cheap rhetorical tricks I am becoming very convinced that there is no intelligent case for violence.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/01/03/endgame-the-problem-of-trivialization/