The Virtues of a Disorganized Resistance
 by unknown author

American 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. We believe that the only effective resistance
is a completely disorganized, decentralized, and leaderless opposition.

While, 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. We will
explain why organized resistance has never worked in the United States. In
addition, we will promulgate a new formula for effective resistance.
Why has organized resistance failed in the United States?

There 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

Americans, 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.

While 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.

Any 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

American 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.

Despite 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.

By 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.
Thus, 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?

In 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.
Organizations 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.
Bureaucracy 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.
Organization 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.
  Disorganized 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.

Organizations 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.

   The 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

We do not propose a complete absence of organization. Instead we
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

We need to construct a disorganized movement. You need not apply to
join. In fact, it might be better if you did not contact 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.