We the People's
Campaign for Freedom

Reclaiming our Popular Sovereignty
and our Futures

I do not advocate for the use of weapons or violence, at all.
We the People Network does not advocate for the use of weapons or violence. Period.
And just for the record,
as well as for the pasty-faced goons sitting in some NSA cubicle somewhere,
I do not own or possess any guns, firearms,
explosives, or anything like that.
I use only methods of nonviolent-action in pursuit of my ideology.
I advocate for the People's Constitutional Convention.

The Campaign for Freedom is a bold project that hopes to educate and empower We the People to take action as popular sovereigns for the preservation of our collective futures.
The goal of the Campaign is to restore freedom to all people, everywhere, not just Americans.
We will not bow to government pressure or oppression.
We are committed to our children's futures and the future of our planet and towards that end, We the People mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The following campaigns are proposed. Help give them life by joining in and getting involved!

The People's Constitutional Convention

WTPNet TV Ad Campaign

The Case For a Modern Day Bastille Liberation

Anti-Police Brutality Campaign

#########

What is Popular Sovereignty?

"I, ( ), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
The Sworn Oath of Office for Government Officials

The concept of popular sovereignty as an inherent right of the people dates back to The Charter of Liberties, followed later by the Magna Carta in 1215.

For those of us not familiar with this document, the Magna Carta, or the Great Charter of English Liberty, was the declaration by King John of Runnymede to the subjects of England establishing fundamental rights and protections for the people. It was based partly on the previous Charters of Freedom and mostly on improving the King's relationship with the the nobles of the land.

What the Magna Carta did was to essentially establish that the King's authority was no longer absolute. This is important to us because our entire system of laws is based upon this document. The protection to persons through Habeas Corpus petitions arose out of this document.

Habeas Corpus is the legal principle that says people have a right to challenge their detention. It essentially prevents the government from "disappearing" people. Habeas corpus essentially instructs the government to produce the body of the detained for the court to witness.

The Magna Carta paved the way for all the freedoms that we enjoy, or rather that we are supposed to be enjoying, such as the rights of petition, assembly, free speech and the right to a fair trial.

When this country was formed, it was on the premise that what we were doing was going to be different. Our new government would be a blend of styles based upon our previous experience and firmly rooted in the concept of popular sovereignty, or the right of the people to govern themselves, that is, to decide their own futures.

When we the people came together as We the People, We exercised our unalienable rights, We flexed our popular sovereignty muscles, and We the People decided on what type of government we were going to have to serve the needs of the people. We created the government to serve the will of the people.

A common misconception is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights exist to define the relationship between the people at large and a government with inherent authority to mold government at will. We are even taught that the only way to change government policy is to either vote in somebody you pray will finally hear the plight of the common person, or worse, you are told to write a letter to your government official and they tell you that they'll get right on it. This is tragically incorrect and will never solve the crisis that we the people face together.
We the People created the Constitution in order to define and control government, not the other way around. The Constitution exists under the people, because we created it , just as we created government.

The Bill of Rights was an addendum to the Constitution that gave a "Thou shall not touch" list to the government that we had delegated authority to.
A list that was just in case they forgot.

Now, just because a particular right isn't spelled out in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does NOT mean that the right is not ours to claim anytime We the People feel we need to. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are proof enough for that. They basically say that whatever we the people have not specifically delegated authority on to the government, we reserve for ourselves. In other words, the government cannot assume any more power than we choose to allow them.

The unalienable right of the people to peaceably assemble is one of the least understood and underutilized rights that We the People possess as human beings living in a Constitutional republic. Typical interpretation of this right by law enforcement, the courts, government and even the general public is that the Right to Assembly is being exercised when the people are "allowed" to hold rallies, marches and other gatherings in public places.

This is only partially true, and the exercise of it is almost always repressed by law enforcement and the courts. The aforementioned activities are actually combined expressions of the right to freedom of speech being exercised with the right to assemble. The right of the people to peaceably assemble has dual meaning depending on whether you are referring to the people's right to assemble or We the People's right of Assembly.

The people are free to assemble peaceably for the purpose of discussion and debate on the issue of the future security and happiness of the people, or protest, hold signs, march, rally, whatever, as long as it is peaceable and they have the right to do it without fear of oppression or retaliation from the government, theoretically that is, according to the Constitution.

Whereas, We the People's right of Assembly extends to our authority and ability to Assemble in Convention, just like the First Constitutional Convention, for the purpose of voting on and implementing whatever sweeping changes that We the People feel we need to do, in order to secure our future happiness and security. This We the People are authorized to do without any permission or cooperation from government, law enforcement, or the courts. We just do it.

Our government. Our country. Our futures.

You see, these three groups I just mentioned, the government, law enforcement and the courts are creations of We the People, created to serve the will of the people. Read the first part of the Declaration of Independence again, where it says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles, and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, to provide new guards for their future security."

Now look again at the sworn Oath of Office:

"I, ( ), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God."

There's really no misinterpreting the intention of the people when they made the Oath a requirement of government service. The individuals in government are required to adhere to it. So is law enforcement and every other public servant.

Read the Supreme Court decision of Marbury v. Madison to discover for yourselves the truth of our popular sovereignty and of the government's requirement to adhere to the sworn Oath of Office. Skim ahead in the document to the last three pages that begin with the statement below and read to the end of the document:

"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.
It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it..."

The implications of this to those individuals in office who don't feel particularly obligated to keep their sworn word is astounding, IF you have an aware and empowered populace willing to wield this authority that is rightly ours. Always has been. But it won't always be if we the people continue to believe those people that try to tell us that we have to take what the government gives us.

The vote is not our only option, especially in the legitimate emergency of Constitutional proportions that We the People now find ourselves in. We must claim and exercise our right as We the People to Assemble in Convention and we must do it now.

We do this by organizing support for and electing delegates to attend regional Conventions. The consensus arising out of these initial Assemblies goes on with the delegates to the State Conventions where they vote on the position of the people that will be carried by the delegates to the National Convention. The decision that comes out of the National Convention has the force of Constitutional law, which is the Supreme law of the land.

Even Congressman Dennis Kucinich supports the idea. Prior to the election, he had been promoting his New Constitutional Convention Initiative. We should pay close attention to and support this effort by Kucinich. His move might help soften people to the idea of Convention as a viable tool for real change.

In the short term, we begin to exercise our popular sovereignty when dealing with government officials, so that they realize that the days of doing business as usual, are over. It takes a bit of courage, but if you have a well-organized populace behind you, then it becomes significantly less daunting.

One of the tools of the sovereign person is the right to withhold those monies, i.e. taxes, that would normally be turned over to the government, when that government is behaving in an illegal manner and refuses to honor the will of the people. You're not refusing to pay, you are simply withholding the amount of money that you have voluntarily agreed to pay until Constitutional order has been restored in government.

Now you won't find this right to withhold specified in the Bill of Rights. The authority stems from the people's declaration of authority that was stated in the Declaration of Independence where it was said:

"that they (the people) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government , laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

There are many ethical and moral justifications for withholding money from the government, not the least of which is that violence is wrong, plain and simple. And paying for war and violence, is the same as supporting war and violence, which is the same as committing war and violence, period.

The people in this country that are claiming Jesus Christ as their guiding light and that support the war, or any war for that matter, are hypocritical fools who will have a very surprised look on their face when they are denied their expected eternal glory. Think about it people, regardless of what the Old Testament says, the leader of the Christian Church would never in a million years pick up a weapon or harm another human being. The same goes for other religions that profess enlightenment, yet continue to support policies, politics and governments that are intent on using violence in the name of righteousness.

Some disillusioned people might suggest that the incident of Jesus casting the moneychangers out of the temple is proof of his willingness to use, and his endorsement of, violence. Folks, that wasn't violence, that was direct action!

I believe that if we are to be judged by anyone after this life, it will be the manner in which we have lived our life and our actions in all things that will decide our next existence. It is my personal belief that I cannot support most of the current policies of the federal government, as well as many of the policies of state and local governmental agencies without jeopardizing my soul and my spiritual future.

I personally believe that my refusal to support must extend beyond any approval/disapproval into the realm of material. Therefore I cannot knowingly pay for and/or participate in any activity which I believe will cause my damnation, even if that payment or activity is required by the laws of men. If you would like to know more about my own beliefs on spirituality, and how it has effected my personal activism, read my proposal on the New Millennium Movement, page and link pending.

Outside of the obvious moral, ethical and spiritual reasons, there are additional justifications for withholding the federal budget. There are several laws on the books that make it illegal to give money to anyone who has been designated a terrorist.

Specifically, our federal anti-terrorism law in Title 18, Section 2339 which makes it a capital crime to engage in the material support of a terrorist organization. The Bush Administration and their accomplices in both Congress and the Courts have committed war crimes and are internationally recognized as war criminals and terrorists. Therefore in my opinion, it becomes a violation of the federal law to provide the current Administration with any funding, as they are known to use that money for acts of terrorism and other war crimes.

The rest of the federal government is not innocent however, and nor is our history. Our government, even before 9/11 and Bush's perpetual war, has been engaged in illegal, often covert and secret, military incursions into sovereign nations around the world. Whether you want to hear it or not, our government is essentially the largest terrorist organization on the planet. They are even willing to commit acts of terrorism on our own interests and blame it on another group or country in order to justify to an unaware American public their right to invade another country militarily.

Don't believe me? Read this declassified paper that lays out the plan by our government during the Kennedy Administration to invade Cuba by initiating a terrorist attack and blaming it on Cuba.

The people's authority to make sweeping changes to government is absolute and clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence The state of California has backed it up in their Constitution with the following in Article II, Section 1:

"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it, when the public good may require."

Of course you're not going to hear this taught to children in schools or talked about by the talking heads on mainstream TV. If anything, this authority is dismissed as something that we gave up when we created the government. That somehow we gave up our sovereignty to the government. I say to re-read the Declaration of Independence.

The individuals in power have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. We don't get taught the truth because the truth is a threat to the elaborate corruption schemes being participated in by many individuals in government.

We the People have an obligation to our ancestors, ourselves and our children that says otherwise. Are you ready to act? Then start organizing in your area for the People's Constitutional Convention as well as asserting your popular sovereignty!

Peace,

Paul Fisher
WTPNet.org

Enter WTPNet Forum

The Case For a Modern Day Bastille Liberation

First and foremost, I do not advocate for the use of weapons or violence, at all.
We The People Network does not advocate for the use of weapons or violence. Period.

The failure of this country to realize the promises of the Declaration of Independence, and how that failure has manifested itself throughout our history, is the number one problem in our society. As more and more oppressive legislation gets passed by our elected officials at the state and federal level, more and more people are getting their freedoms taken away. They are getting locked up in concrete and steel mega structures, warehoused and kept down, with any real effort at rehabilitation stifled, and a parole system designed to keep you a ward of the state, forever.

The US has more people in prison, per capita, than any other country in the world. The prison system has also largely become privatized, as large corporations step into the fastest growing industry in the US. The prisons are being used for free labor at the expense of society, and for the benefit and profit of these corporations. Most of the people who are in prison, are there for nonviolent crimes, mostly drug offenses. If our country was still operating under the shield of the Constitution, most of these people would not be in prison. There are numerous people serving life sentences, some with death sentences, for crimes the state knows they did not commit. Many of these people remain in prison due to technicalities in the law, that prevents new evidence from being introduced to the court.

We the people need to take control of the situation by demanding the supervised release of all nonviolent offenders. We the people need to demand that the accused and incarcerated not be subject to the current system of appeals that will keep an innocent person imprisoned on a technicality. There can be no statute of limitations imposed upon the truth!

We need to have a movement that will deliver from bondage the wrongly imprisoned similar in spirit to the historical liberation of the French Bastille in 1789.

The People's Constitutional Convention can provide the starting point to reaffirm our Constitutional government and to begin the process of reversing the prison industrial complex. By bringing a well thought out People's Amendment package to a We the People initiated Convention, we can create for ourselves the fundamental changes we the people need to see ourselves and our planet to the future.

Peace and Solidarity,

Paul Fisher
We the People Network

Enter WTPNet Forum
Cop Watch - this links to the CopWatch website (very useful)

Anti-Police Brutality Campaign

First and foremost, I do not advocate for the use of weapons or violence, at all.
We The People Network does not advocate for the use of weapons or violence. Period.

That being said, police brutality is on the rise as this country continues its slide into fascism. We have a duty as We the People and as Human Beings to confront unlawful behavior by those we have entrusted to enforce the law.

Communities around the country should assert their sovereignty by creating commissions at the county and municipal level that would provide oversight for the police departments. These Commissions could serve for purposes other than police oversight, such as having the authority to enforce Oath of Office provisions on government officials.

These Commissions should be comprised mostly of citizens, along with representatives from all other affected parties, business, city, county, police chief, etc.. Most importantly, these Commissions must have full access to appropriate documents, files, etc., to effectively monitor the department or agency in question. The Commissions must also have the authority to sanction, when other avenues for relief have been exhausted.

Now the reality that remains for We the People, since we do not have these Citizen Commissions in place yet and are likely to have to fight for them, is to assert ourselves in a nonviolent manner in any abuse situation that we are able. It is always the right thing to do, to intervene in any situation where there is somebody being violated in some fashion, and you have the ability to do something about it. No matter who is committing the violence, and regardless of what authority they claim, you have a moral obligation to defend yourself as well as others who need your immediate assistance against violence and oppression.

That being said, use of the following information is at your own discretion. I will counsel the reader to only consider it for purposes of evaluating current governmental policy and to contrast that policy against the legitimate needs of the people of this country, and of the world.
Not only is the use of violence wrong, first and foremost, you will most likely die, or be severely injured. Only when life is imminently threatened, is violence justified. Never lethal, and only as is required to diffuse the immediate situation. Life should never be taken, except as necessary to sustain life. We take the lives of plants and animals in order to feed humans, as it is in the wild with all of Creation. However, if we kill or if we use violence to effect change, we will become that which we seek to change. This is a Universal Law that is unchangeable, unlike the laws of men. Immediately following the information are listed some recommendations for what you can realistically do.

The following is taken from the website of the Constitution Society.
I will be adding the case law referred to below into the Online Library section of WTPNet.org.

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary."
Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."
"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter."
Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified."
Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence."
Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery."
(State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense."
(State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance."
(Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that "a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation." There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, "If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions." That was the "ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.""
(From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace."
(Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

As for the last passages above, I say again, I do not advocate for the use of weapons or violence, at all. We the People Network does not advocate for the use of weapons or violence. Period. I cannot and will not use violence, as that is the committment I have made to the Creator of my understanding, and I will not support any other to do so in my name.

These passages do become useful, however, after sufficient organization and preparation, as well as the involvement of sufficient numbers of nonviolent actionists, in order to minimize the potential for violent oppression. Not for the use of violence, never, but only to help our law enforcement folks out there realize that they are supposed to serve the needs of the people, not the State. The line has been blurred and lost since the people of this country declared unanimously to the world in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence. We may not have Burma or Pakistan in this country yet, but it is widely recognized that the groundwork has already been laid for the declaration of martial law in this country.

Read the bone-chilling account of martial law in 1981 Poland by Lech Biegalski, a man who was actually there when it happened.
More information on this man can be found at
http://canadawatch.org
I got this link from the organization AfterDowningStreet.org. Thank you David Swanson and the team at ADS.

We welcome those men and women in uniform out there that see the light as far as what is going down in this country. You understand what it really meant when you swore in as an officer. You swore to support and defend the Constitution first and foremost, and you embrace that. You will be welcomed to stand side by side with the true body politic of this country, the American people. We must have the courage to resist. Help us have the courage to resist.

WTPNet.org does advocate the following guidelines when dealing with unlawful behavior:

*Carry a video camera with you at all times, and be ready to upload your documentation to either wtpnet.org or youtube.com, among others. Have another person(s) available to act as a runner for the documentation in order to safely flee the scene if necessary.

*Have a cassette tape-based answering machine at your home, or elsewhere safe, that you can discreetly call with your cell phone. Use a hidden microphone of some sort attached to the phone for this.

*Pre-plan and have ready a phone tree of people to call to act as first responders that can respond to an incident as it is unfolding. Better yet, have the first responders dispatched via pager or text message alert that is RF- based, as in not cellular or web/digital. These people would need to be ready to place themselves physically between the offender and the violated.

*Attempt to diffuse the situation through nonviolent methodology. Again preparation is the key here. I cannot stress the importance of getting experienced nonviolent action trainers teaching people in your community. Most communities have a Peace and Justice center of some sort. Get involved. I should talk though, I need to get more involved with mine.

*Last resort when there is no one else around. Place yourself between the offender and the violated. This is not recommended, but is morally justified. Don't expect to not be punished, even hurt. But when the violence is unjustified on the part of the officer, and your conscience tells you to nonviolently intervene, it is right to do so.

Nonviolent action, sometimes referred to as direct action, when fully utilized can shift the power dynamic in favor of the demands of the people. A prime example would be the appropriate use of nonviolent intervention in the case of a law enforcement officer violating the rights of any person. This should never be attempted alone or without prior training and preparation.

By physically placing yourself between the offender and the victim, or by having sufficient numbers to occupy and diffuse the situation by mere presence of will, you can then if necessary nonviolently place the offender(s) under citizen's arrest, call for backup from those with whom you have delegated authority, namely the police, and have them incarcerate the offender(s), where they will remain to be seen by a magistrate of the people, who will then decide further action. The desired alternative is for the officer to have a change of heart, and to come around on their own, and to reconsider the use of force. Most people if dealt with in a consciously nonviolent manner, will respond in kind.

If you doubt the authority of the people to act as law enforcement, in California you need look no further than Article I, Section 7b of the California State Constitution which states, and I quote:

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."

This coincides with the Equal Protection clause of the American Constitution.

Nonviolent Action

What is Nonviolent Action?

There are many misconceptions about what is meant by the term nonviolent action. Many people might say that the term is in reference to the practice of nonviolence, or pacifism, as a life path.
While nonviolence as a way of being is certainly something we should all heed, the practice of nonviolent action differs from pacifism significantly in that nonviolent action, fully utilized, is anything but passive.
Consider the words of Mohandas Ghandi when he was speaking to his friend Nehru about what sort of action might be effective against the British. Nehru basically said, and I am paraphrasing their conversation here, he said that he did not feel that the British would take seriously any sort of pacifism or nonviolence. And Ghandi replied that he has personally never advocated for being passive anything. My reference of choice on the subject, mostly due to it's comprehensive and practical approach, is the three volume The Politics of Nonviolent Action by Gene Sharp. As soon as I receive permission from the publisher, I will post several significant chapters in the online library section.

Dr. Sharp, Senior Scholar at the Albert Einstein Institution in Boston, Massachusetts, has spent nearly his entire career researching nonviolent action and its practical application, as well as being present at several very significant historic events that have occurred around the world during his lifetime. According to Dr. Sharp's research and experience, nonviolent action occurs in either one, or a combination of, three possible mechanisms. They are conversion, accomodation, and coercion.

Nonviolent conversion is where the nonviolent actionist is able, through their actions, to bring about the conversion of the subject of their actions to their point of view. This is usually done through methods such as strikes, protests and methods of noncooperation. Conversion occurs in the heart of opposition when they see the actionists capacity for self-suffering in the face of government-sanctioned brutality and have a change of heart.

Nonviolent accomodation , the most common mechanism in successful nonviolent action, occurs when the actionist's demands are met, yet the opponent still disagrees with the point of view of the nonviolent actionists. The methods are usually the same as with conversion. The reason for the "change of heart" is usually political, such as it being an election year, and the official is really only mitgating potential damage to his or her political career.

Nonviolent coercion, on the other hand, is usually not considered by most nonviolent activists. I believe the tendency for people when they hear the word "coercion" assume that term to be synonymous to a violent act. This is incorrect.

According to Dr. Sharp, victory for the actionists can be achieved even against the will of the opponent. Taking from Dr. Sharp's 3rd volume of the Politics of Nonviolent Action, The Dynamics of Nonviolent Action, he quotes James Farmer, author of the book Freedom - When? in the following passage:

"As James Farmer has pointed out, when change by conversion and accomodation is believed to be unrealistic, neglect of the mechanism of nonviolent coercion has left the field clear for advocates of violence:

Perhaps we at CORE have failed to show how effective and virile nonviolence can be....We must show that nonviolence is something more than turning the other cheek, that it can be aggressive within the limits a civilized order will permit. Where we cannot influence the heart of the evil-doer, we can force an end to the evil practice."
---end book quote

Ghandi did not care for the term "coercion" either and instead referred to it as compelling change and compulsion. Whatever you want to call it, we are at the point in our struggle where we need to strongly consider the full use of this third mechanism of nonviolent action, nonviolent coercion.

The essential methodology of nonviolent coercion requires organizing effective widespread defiance of and complete noncooperation with all government officials. The level of widespread defiance makes it impossible for the government or political system to operate without giving in to the demands of the people. Many times during such a campaign of defiance, the opposition may even find that the enforcement arm of the government, i.e. the police, may side with the people and refuse to apply violence or other sanction, thereby accelerating the time frame in which the people's demands are met.

There will be more on this subject in other pages that will link off of the subtopics above. Any help in web content work would be greatly appreciated. please contact the network if you can help out or otherwise want to get involved.

Power to the People!

Peace,

Paul Fisher
We The People Network

WTPNet Menu

WTPNet Forum

Current Forum Topics

Support Nationwide Election of the President!

Support Iraq Veterans Against the War!

Support the Lakotah People's Struggle for Independence!

Sign their Petition for Recognition of Lakotah Sovereignty on this site!

Visit their site at
Republic of Lakotah.

Important Websites

We the People's
Campaign for Freedom

Reclaiming our Popular Sovereignty
and our Futures

What is Popular Sovereignty?

The Case For a Modern Day Bastille Liberation

Anti-Police Brutality Campaign

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

Nonviolent Action

What is Nonviolent Action?

WTPNet TV

Join the People's
Campaign for Freedom!

The People's Pledge of Allegiance

Impeachment Resources

Recent Uploads

Helping the Homeless of the World

Beatrice Saldovar and Rose Gentle

The Homeless Band - No War Video

WTPNet Menu

WTPNet Forum

Current Forum Topics

Support Nationwide Election of the President!

Support Iraq Veterans Against the War!

Support the Lakotah People's Struggle for Independence! Sign their Petition for Recognition of Lakotah Sovereignty on this site! Visit their site atRepublic of Lakotah.

Important Websites

We the People'sCampaign for Freedom

Reclaiming our Popular Sovereignty and our Futures

What is Popular Sovereignty?

The Case For a Modern Day Bastille Liberation

Anti-Police Brutality Campaign

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

Nonviolent Action

What is Nonviolent Action?

WTPNet TV

Join the People's Campaign for Freedom!

The People's Pledge of Allegiance

Impeachment Resources

Recent Uploads

Helping the Homeless of the World

Beatrice Saldovar and Rose Gentle

The Homeless Band - No War Video

Support the Lakotah People's Struggle for Independence!

Sign their Petition for Recognition of Lakotah Sovereignty on this site!

Visit their site at
Republic of Lakotah.

We the People's
Campaign for Freedom

Reclaiming our Popular Sovereignty
and our Futures

Join the People's
Campaign for Freedom!