How to Respond
Last Updated: 29 November, 2023
Fundamentals of Activism:
The object of activism is like any other game: to make the most advancement for your cause with the minimum harm to you.
Good activism has the adittional requirements of working only within moral bounds.
Activsm tends to be non-establishment or even anti-establishment, because if the Establishment was doing what was right in that issue, they have enough resources at their disposal that it probably wouldn't need your intervention.
Misconceptions Concerning Anti-Establishment Activism:
Myth: The only threats to society are those who defy Government. Government would have us believe that the main threats to society are those who resist Government direction, on the assumption that what Government directs is safe, which leads resisting the Government direction is unsafe or even a threat. For example, those who resisted Government mandates to be vaccinated during the COVID-19 crisis, were called the cause of the crisis, ie. a 'pandemic of the unvaccinated', rather than the Public blaming the virus or virus engineers or vaccines which neither prevent infection nor transmission.
Disobedience is moral and necessary when the direction or orders given are clearly immoral, which clarity varies depending on the issue, the order, and the investment in learning. Elected officials have their office because they have the most votes, only, not because they have the most knowledge or morality; and their officials are usually appointed by them.
Sometimes Government is dead wrong, and the world needs activists to point that out, without which we have no defense but follow over the side of a cliff.
Myth: Misinformation is anything contrary to the official narrative. Misinformation is information which is factually wrong, not information which is merely inconvenient. Moreover, due to layers of truth, it is difficult to label correctly, because there is always the chance that the other person knows something ou don't yet; for this reason a chacne to defend must be given before this label is used. It is easy but folly for people invested or ignorant on an issue to callously label couter-opinion as 'misinformation', without needing to prove it or giving an opportunity to defend, simply because their viewpoint is so popular that they are not expected to defend it. Oftentimes the person making the opposing claim does have the evidence to support it. For this reason, as a defense to attacks which might try to deny you the right to show your evidence, it's usually best to present your evidence with the claim whether it is asked for or not.
It is also an affront to human dignity to arbitrarily dismiss claims coming from anyone as 'misinformation' because they came from someone you don't respect as much as others. Anyone can have knowledge or evidence, and to refuse to weigh someone's claims fairly renders the right to free expression meaningless: it's useless to have the right to express yourself if you don't have the right to be fairly heard.
Misinformation is dangerous but correctly identifying it is difficult if you are not all-knowing. It is safer and more respectful to human dignity to allow all voices to speak, and let those who make decisions decide for themselves.
Myth: It's futile to say 'no' to the Government. Encouraging fear of and a belief of powerlessness before Government is what they try to do, such as with showcasing severe punishments for anyone who disobeys.
First of all, God can stand against Government, as both His power and authority are much higher, and God is accessible to anyone with a moral cause. That is probably why the first thing oppressive regimes try to do is shut down places of worship (such as in Communism or the COVID-19 crisis).
Second of all, the only real power Government has is public acceptance, on which it continually depends. Appointed by the Public, public consent, however implied, is required at every step, and no law or order can stand if the Public rejects it, especially if Law Enforcement refuses to enforce it (as they sometimes do). The reality is that if many disobey the Government at any point then the Government has lost control. By simply not following leaders anymore, they cannot lead you.
Dangers of Anti-Establishment Activism:
Unfortunately, resisting the Establishment in isolation or small numbers has dangers, because the Establishment tends to have a lot of resources and abilities in their toolbox, which are effective so long as the rest of the Public is willing to carry them out against dissidents. These tools include:
They write the laws, and can rewrite them at will, and are under no obligation to ensure they are just. They can literally make anything a law. For example, in some places in Canada, as of this writing it is not only legal to kill your unborn child at any age, but illegal in some zones to say that it is wrong. They can declare anything they want an emergency and then awared themselves dictatorial 'emergency powers' based on the emergency they arbitrarily declared. This was done in the COVID-19 crisis for example. It gives them even more powers than usual. They appoint and pay the judges. Usually the one who pays the piper calls the tune. Judges have a lot of power over what is allowed to be presented and said in court. Their judges can run trials in an unfair and even illegal manner in practice. Have a look at what they did to Alex Jones just for saying something true was a hoax: EXCLUSIVE! Alex Jones Responds To $45M Sandy Hook Verdict And The Future Of Infowars. The court placed many stunning restrictions on this Defendant which are not applied to even the worst most brazen murderer, including that Alex was not allowed to testify in his own defense, not allowed to present evidence, and not allowed to call witnesses.
The Establishment pretends that they consider any kind of human suffering, even emotional, screams out for unlimited justice and must be answered, while they quietly make themselves legally immune for most of the far greater harms they do. For example, one cannot sue the Federal or State governments without their consent, and vaccine manufacturers generally have legal immunity from any harms their products cause even if that cause is proven. So Alex Jones can be sued just for mistakenly saying something was a hoax, but no one is sued, for example, for falsely claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (which was the justification to invade Iraq in 2003, resulting in the death of millions of people). They appoint and pay the police. No matter how equitable the Law might be, or how equal you may be before the Courts, the police aren't required to enforce the Law equally on everyone. Some crimes are let go while others are prosecuted. There are post-indictment mechanisms by which trials of Accused can be cancelled or otherwise thwarted. Evidence might accidentally be destroyed, or the Court process might be so slow as to cross certain time limits, as just two examples. They can avoid the courts entirely by overt and covert assassination. They assassinate people often by air strikes, which they occasionally announce. They can use the directional targetting features of 5G towers to invisibly and automatically assualt people with electromagnetic radiation. They use sometimes use torture and the Public seems to accept it. There are loopholes whereby the police can physically abuse you in practice. For example, if they beat you up in jail, and your attorney asks for the video from the security camera, they can simply say they lost it. If they arrest you, police are usually permitted to use far more physical force than putting someone in handcuffs, even with someone who will come willingly. Lately they seem to like to put people on the ground and kneel on them for some reason. The Establishment, which includes established news media, can sway a narrative so that guilt seems to fall in any direction they choose. This means they can make a guilty person appear innocent to the public, or an innocent person appear guilty to the Public. They don't even need to present erroneous information, but simply by omitting some information while showcasing other information, they can distort perception. For example, in the movie Chato's Land (1972), the native American was hunted to be hung on a report that he shot and killed the Sherrif, which was true, but ignored the important detail that the Sherrif had drawn his gun on Chato first, while also making a statement of clear intent to harm as he did so. They have virtually unlimited public resources at their disposal, including the abilitly to not only spend public money, and raise taxes to no limit, but to outright create money. They can appoint the official experts recognized by media and courts. Imagine what you could do if you had the power to appoint the 'official' expert for the public on any topic. They can essentially make any narrative they want official by appointing a person who is willing to speak it. Even in a lifetime of presenting truth, they only need to find one single mistake to attack on. They have a lot of resources at their disposal to find it, including not only mmoney and personnel, but surveillance. Even if your innocence is iron-clad, and your understanding and application of law perfect, and even if the Establishment doesn't abuse their powers, someone can easily be given an incentive to lie against you. This happened to St. Thomas Moore, and he was executed. Courts tend to assume that the official narrative is correct. This is a tremendous disadvantage to overcome if you need to defend from being accused of spreading 'misinformation'. Meanwhile, Officials who spread misinformation are virtually never challenged in Court, no matter how many people are harmed by trusting that information.
About Your Rights:
Despite your confidence that you have the right to free speech and protest, the reality is like this:
Unless you work in a related legal profession, you are likely to be at a practical disadvantage in trying to use the law on your side (though it is far from impossible), because:
There are so many laws that no one can be expected to know them all, even though the Public is expected to obey them all (ignorance of the law is considered no excuse in court). Laws tend to be often created but seldom revised or deleted. The accumulation of laws at every level of Government is enormous.
A practical defense is to focus on the most foundational law, such as a Constitution or Bill or Charter of Rights, but when you use only that approach, you miss some other laws which might apply.
the Police usually know the practical application of the Law better than you, as well as how the arrest, jail, and court system works in practice, because that is exactly their job to enforce that Law in a pratical way. They've actually done many arrests, whereas you've probably not been arrested or seen anyone arrested in-person before. in practice the Police can afford to make more legal, verbal, and physical mistakes than you. At worst, if they wrongfully arrest you, use excessive force on you, or kill you, it is not usually very difficult for them to escape blame on some excuse. For example, some people have been shot by police simply because they couldn't see their hand for a moment, or because, though they were unarmed, the Police argued that they might have grabbed the officer's gun and therefore it was self-defense to prevent that. Even if blame sticks, it is usally the Department who is liable, rather than them personally. In contrast, anything you say to them is consdiered admissible in court as your statement, and if you lay one finger on the ground they are typically allowed to beat you into the ground and then arrest you for assault afterwards. If their side pays, usually it's the Government that pays. If your side pays, it is usually you that suffers personally. Even a morally wrongful arrest might mean you have to pay thousands of dollars to defend yourself, and have no chance of being employed or travel in the future (criminal record).
The possibility of people exaggerating or lying to accuse you into being arrested cannot be overlooked. For example if you protest near a driveway, the owner of the property can accuse you of blocking his driveway. If you are arrested, it takes you out of activism and burdens you with tremendous legal costs, worries, and consequences (a criminal record can prevent you from getting a job and impede International travel forever, regardless of whether it was for a good cause or not). Getting arrested also discourages moderate activists with a perception that there is no way to publicly object to wrongs without it costing them greatly: not something to do when it's already been difficult enough to get them to choose a morally good option on a secret voting ballot for which society would never punish them.
What Sucks about Activism for Good in the Present Environment
As of this writing, from experience, what sucks about activism for good in this world today is the following:
Lack of Public Interest for Truth: Truth doesn't seem to be a priority of most people, but only to beliee whateer the community they want to be part of expects them to believe. That's why most people seem to stick with the religion they are born into: they don't see any reason to compare it with other versions of the truth, because their priority is to stay with their community which means believing whatever it does.
When you present even hard evidence to people with a mindset like that, they react like evidence of the truth is the most irrelevant thing possible.
Lack of Public Interest to Act for the good of ALL (with one exception) It's stunning how much effort it takes to motivate people to take any unconventional activism no matter how important or urgent the issue, how strong your presented evidence behind your argument, or how easy you make it for them to do something. I right this as I am driven to exhaustion trying to get anyone to sign a petition which I know will keep my country out of war, and perhaps stop a worldnuclear war, if enough people sign it. I made it so that it only takes a click but so far almost no one can be bothered to click to stop a national or world war; one person simply said he doesn't care what happens.
We can speculate on why, and they don't seem to like to say why, but from hints it seems to be that they recognize no priority or reason to serve the good of all. It doesn't help that advancing the evolution of humanity isn't really a directive of any major religion we are aware of: only to get new recruits into the religion and sometimes help the poor and give to that religious organization but that's about it.
There is one exception. If the leaders of the community they identify with lead the activism, they will usually support it, especially if it's in the context of the herd being threatened. The average person trusts in the herd as a foundation of not only their security but their identity.
Corruption of Good Organizations: By experience we can say that many organizations purposed for good aren't purely for that purpose succeeding. Usually it is because they derive an income from it, and once that happens, they tend to make mistakes like: news agencies not reporting topics their backers don't like even if well within their mandate, agenies supposedly working to end something actually opposing legislation which would end it because it would cut off their income, spiritual organizations opposing new teachings because they could overturn the existing authroity and income which has become a greater priority.
So why bother with Activism?
There are at least two good reasons:
You need to contribute. You bother because you have a purpose and a responsibility to your life, before God, and society, and you will not stand by and let the innocent be brought to harm, even if it means your own.
Why do you have such a responsibiltiy? If for no other reason, however 'self-sufficient' you may be, no human is completely self-sufficient. Your life, body, sunlight, oxygen, and use of the planet are supplied to you. You should be thinking about giving something back. You may have paid handsomely for your land, but only because someone in the beginning decided to claim what was provided to humanity for free; you didn't pay the true Provider.
You protect the right for you, your descendents, and your community to live according to the values you believe are correct. You can't take anything for granted in politics, especailly not in an atheist political culture: not even that the most basic realities of our world, nevermind human rights, will be acknowledged. For example, you might go to sleep (politically) believing there are only two genders, and believe it's a fact not needing action, but wake up (politically) one day to realize that the Government now recognizes 97 genders and they've made it a hate crime to say different.
So how do you do it?
Activism for good should focus on getting the most good done without any evil. Suggestions:
Love the truth as something precious. Note that 'gospel' is another word for truth. As written in the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, truth is the one thing which never changes. Never abandon the truth you have except yield if and when a higher truth is revealed to you. This fidelity is the foremost rule of good activism and one which infidels, who bend to any pressure, cannot understand. Notice that you must yield to higher (better for the purpose) truth the moment that you realize it, however. Recognize which issues are most important. These are usually the ones which have the potential to effect life on Earth, especially humanity, in the most serious and lasting ways, for better or worse.
Even with the best enthusiasm, failure to put your energy on the issues of greatest potential impact makes your investment of energy come to very little lasting results for anyone. Consider people (and preferably all living things) precious. Have compassion for them. Be moved to protect the innocent. Reject philosophies which exagerrate living things as a threat. Make morality the top priority in your decisions. If there is evil, be sure to narrow your focus for blame to only those truly responsible. Seek Truth based on evidence and diverse sources. You need to be informed about what's going on, at least related to your purpose, in the world around you. Insist on thorough truth before intervening on an issue. You don't want to be duped into coming in on the morally wrong side. In particular you should want to make sure that you:
Keep abreast of headlines from diverse sources daily. Verify claims which you're pressured to decide on, no matter who they come from, especially if the decision you're being lead into involves a serious sacrifice of your rights, freedoms, or resources. If someone tells you, for example, that wearing a dog collar is important to keep everyone safe for medical reasons, ask to see the studies on that, yourself, before you leash yourself. Hear all sides on an issue before you decide. For example, before condemning someone, or, for that matter, their argument, hear what they have to say. Give people a right not only to express tehmselves but to be fairly heard. Don't refuse to look at evidence on important topics, no matter which side it comes from. Do not only your own verification of evidenece, but your own experiments. The best way to find the truth is to gather and test your own data. This is what the scientific method is all about.
Keep the evidence you find, preferably immediately. You need it as a basis to share truth with others. Get a trove going; it is a treasure. Distribute unique evidence as soon and as widely as possible. You don't want it to be destroyed, even accidentally, and as long as you carry it before it's released you are a target for the other side to stop you. Decide what to do about it. Focus on methods which are moral, legal, and efficient. Share evidence of the truth, but only with those who somehow first indicate interest in the presentation.
Your cause needs public majority opinion on its side as much and soon as possible. To rally people to your side you need to share your argument especially the evidence it's based on. Gather it at every opportunity; don't expect anyone to believe you without evidence.
However recognize that some people don't want the truth from you at this time. In such situations, it's usually unclear whether it's you, the time, the topic, the argument, or the evidence which is what they don't want, but allow them the choice. Their indication of interest can be as simple as a click. Trying to fire even the best evidence at someone who has already silently decided they don't want to hear it now is interpreted as assault and usually punished rather than appreciated. Always respect others' informed or wilfully ignorant choice (treat refusal to be informed as informed), within their right to choose, even if you know it means their certain death. If they decide against your advice, and they have the right to decide that, then leave them alone. Otherwise you are harassing them and can be attacked on that basis. Maybe their choice is insane, but they must live with it, and you must not stand in the way of them reaping what they have deliberately sown. Your job is to offer the truth, and offer a life-saving choice if you can, but not to save everyone. Don't be surprised or shatter at resistance. Resistance to a good message is often more a flaw of human nature than anything wrong with your message. In particular, some people choose to be vulgar and abuse others starting with those of good intent (presumably because they are the most sluggish to retaliate). It's our observation that literally any kind of message-sharing in the Public has brought some amount of backlash, even positions everyone should be on board with. We have never promoted a message and not had some backlash to our memory, to the point that we're starting to believe that some people would curse us even if we publicly held up a sign with a happy face. Remember this if you're holding a sign and someone driving by gives you the finger for it. Be consistent. This is really the missing link in activism. Big things are built in consistentcy of smaller efforts, and in particular the Public responds very well to repetition. In other words, if you are logically doing everything right, but public response is dismal after a couple of attempts, try keeping up the attempts. Repetition is more convincing to many people than anything, and persistence is well respected. Always check what information you intend to share before you share it. It is very damaging, at least to your reputation, to share information which turns out to be false. Don't share only based on what is for your position; it is an enemy tactic to seed false information which supports your narrative, and then expose it as false after you share it, to embarrass you. If you find out something you shared is false, immediately publish an apology/retraction. This mitigates damages for everyone concerned, including to your reputation. Include an emotional aspect in your presentaion as much as possible. Most people decide emotionally first and mentally later. They also tend to be proud. Any kind of aggression or explicit criticism of the other side tends to cause them to react in anger and no longer consider your arguments however worthy they might be, as their only priority becomes removing the perceived threat of you so that they can feel comfortable again. The only questioning of themselves they permit must arise within themselves. For example, it might be better to simply be an example of kindness yourself than criticize the other side for cruelty. Consider the approach this group used: Eyes (Award Winning Short Documentary). Beware sharing your opinions with those you depend on for vital supports.
Not everyone is interested in what is right or allows others freedom of conscience. If such people know you rely on them they might attempt to use that leverage to persecute you to 'make' you give up your 'foolish' beliefs 'for your own good', or just to make your life harder. Focus efforts for change on the decision-makers who are responsible and/or have power to change the course. Start from the top: the people who are the most responsible for the biggest decisions. Don't start from the bottom, people with little or no responsibiltiy such as customer service reps, just because it's easier. Understand before you vote. For example, read the entire policy platform for a political candidate at least as well as you would read all of the ingredients of something you were considering eating. Do what you reasonably can to confirm your voter registration in each election: not just that your name is there somewhere, but in exactly the right place. Do not entirely rely on election authorities to have updated your address correctly or family to tell you when your election card has arrived.
It's worth noting that even if something is wrong with your voter registration, if you contact the election authority they can often help you find some way to vote.
Refuse to vote for what you understand is evil, not even if no good options are given you.This
is the least you can do on a social/political front. It’s not
when evil arises, but when you give some kind of explicit or implicit consent to evil that you truly
become complicit or enslaved. Beware that controlling the options presented to you so that none
of them are good is often used as a tactic to get good people to give
their consent to something evil. Better to
refuse to choose between options like that, stating that none of
them are acceptable.
The absolute minimum social duty: at election time,
actually read election platforms and refuse to vote for what you know is evil to begin or to continue.
- Refuse to obey any orders which you clearly understand are immoral. Article: Tyranny is a sign of weakness, so don’t underestimate the power of refusing to comply
Switch to freedom-supporting platforms. This is also for your own protection, not just social activism. For example, if you use an anti-freedom funding platform, they might find a way to withhold your funds collected for you from you, as they have done to others. Attack wrong ideas not wrong people. Love your enemies, but not what they stand for. Anyone can change. Beware of any beliefs which cause you to justify attacking another person.
Such justifications are immoral, and indicate a deeper flaw with your belief system, whether you want to admit it or not. Beware people who shout at and otherwise abuse their own family or household as their preferred form of activism. Real activists focus on the causes of problems, not a captive audience. Beware of evil being portrayed as good and good being portrayed as evil. This is a favourite tactic of evil people, to win public support for evil and public condemnation and prosecution for good. Sometimes the promotion is subconscious, for example, portraying fictional characters of an evil ideology as otherwise the nicest people you could possibly meet. Be loyal to truth and morality, not any human being or political party, except that you will embrace better truth if it comes your way. Blind loyalty may be desired by our leaders, but it's not a virtue. Discern the invisible victims. Unless the Establishment can find a narrative to expose it in plain sight as something good, the worst evils are usually the most hidden. Cruelty out of sight tends to be out of mind, which works strongly against victims depending on the Public to put a stop to something. It takes a special caring and discernment to notice victims who are deliberately hidden. Learn about laws relevant to political activism. For example, this page has a link for a guide published for Canadians. Be meticulous in your respect of private property. Be meticulous in your manners. Insulting police or opponents encourages unnecessary retaliation againt you which sharign your message does not require. Try to include, rather than exclude, the widest public audience your purpose allows. If you don't need to include other issues, don't, because it's more difficult to find people who agree to your position on five issues at the same time than one. Minimize criticism of your audience. Nobody wants to be told they're a fool, which leads them to reject you and your message for their pride, but they might tolerate a message that they've been lied to. Search for existing initiatives before you start a new one. It's a lot easier and more productive to support a worthy initiative. Tend to obey the direction of police officers. If they ask you to do something, they may intend to punish you if you don't comply. Also you're there to get a message out, not get arrested, and you must remember that difference. If defying police is not absolutely required to get your message out, then don't. Have a keen sense of where you have a right to stand and get out of where you don't. Don't live with people who are clearly against your good work. Even if they don't abuse you physically, psychologically, or legally, and even if they are silent on the issue, the cloud of even silent contempt for you works against you at least on a spiritual level. You might have trouble finding hope and enthusiasm due to the continual atmosphere of discouragement, and that's at best. Overall there are too many ways for them to hurt you or your work if you live with them for you to tolerate this situation more than absolutely necessary. Only approach others within your rights. Otherwise it's considered abuse and your presentation can be dismissed on that offense alone, regardless of content. If you are accused of spreading 'misinformation', simply respond that you are spreading evidence and allowing people to make up their own minds. Hopefully that's what you're doing. Always communicate in the most specific wording for what you want to say. This reduces the chance of misinterpretation of what you said, which could work against you. Never say anything you can't prove (except for giving your own eyewitness testimony). Stick to the facts. Ready your collected evidence. Minimize inclusion of your opinions. Stay away from character assassination. It does useless harm; it shows you are an enemy of that person rather than just an enemy of false ideas. Prefer to give people evidence rather than conclusions. Giving people conclusions is tantamount to telling people what to think. Be satisfied that, even if you've been turned way, the seed you've planted in their mind might yet grow in time. Your goal is to help them get one notch closer to the truth at a time. Humans cannot usually handle major revelation all at once, for which their defense is to reject the presentation. Always record (usually write down) specific significant words in conversation which you might possibly need to use later in any way, even if it's just a basis for you to not later doubt your own judgments, because paraphrase is extremely vulnerable: even with just one word deviation the the other person can say they never said that, refuse to repeat what they did say, and accuse you of putting words in their mouth. Then they've convicted you of something while they remain unconvicted of anything. Failing to record exact words makes it practically impossible to hold them responsible for what they said. So make sure you can reproduce it exactly. When you hear something significant, don't trust your own memory, but stop everything else you you're doing which you can safely stop, and write down what was said exactly the way it was said. Only then should you think about responding to it. If repeating what someone else said, do not use paraphrasing, but specific words. When presenting any fact, present it with the reference: embedded if feasible, or with you if not. If you must present any conclusion of your own which might be defamatory, always explicitly state it as your ‘opinion’. If speaking on a topic so sensitive that society normally only allows experts to speak, put on a disclaimer that you're no expert (unless you are). If you meet with opposition, don't react emotionally. Ensure your priority remains finding and sharing truth rather than winning an argument or defending your pride. Complain, where you have a right to say, through the channels which the System itself provides to you first (such as writing your elected representative). These are the easiest and most respected methods, and even if they are ineffective, it's morally important for you, and to be able to say, that you used the provided channels first before excalating. It shows that you prefer peace when you always opt for the least levels of conflict first to solve any problem. Do not work against the majority more than sharing ideas within your right to do so. Even if your cause is right, working against the majority is the difference between what society sees as a hero (doing what the majority wants) or a terrorist (doing what the majority doesn't want). Don't be a terrorist. Always separate the innocent from the guilty. Be careful to level criticism at the smallest group of people most responisble. Exclude even the indirectly responsible. Beware of speakerphone and the potential of others to record you or not knwo that a conversation is not private on your side. The other person might not know that the conversation isn't private, and you should always warn them. Protect your communications and data with encryption. It's actually insane for the Public to lazily use unencrypted communication when free and convenient encryption is readily available. It's like mailing a letter as an open page which anyone between you and the recipient can read or keep a copy of. Unfortunately you need someone on the other end to agree to its use, and their reluctance has usually been the difficulty.
Examples of privacy-supporting implements include Protonmail (for email) and the TOR browser (for internet browsing). There are also many ways to encrypt your computer. Everyone has data worthy of protecting; it doesn't mean you're evil. This is why you're supposed to actually cover your PIN code at the bank machine with your other hand as you enter it for example. This is a good practice for everyone, but in activism you can afford mistakes even less. In a battle where you have actual enemies, and in a court system where your words can be used only against you but never for you, the need for privacy is that much greater. Publish anonymously where it does nothing for your message to reveal your identity. Revealing your real name opens up many routes of possible attack. Don't do it unless there's some benefit for your cause. Ensure the services you rely on (such as for funding and publishing) are supportive or at least permissive to your cause , and cannot be compelled to act against you or your supporters. Otherwise they may betray you or be successfully pressured into suspending services when you need them the most. References: Videorecord outdoor activism and important events if at all possible. You need to have evidence, not just rely on the memory, honest, and availability of witnesses. For example, if a police officer punches you in the face, you need to have that from someone on video to have any reasonable expectation of succeeding in a complaint about it. Plan to recruit the interested rather than those closest to you, who may let you down. Pray as much as you can: not just for your cause, and your dependents, but for yourself.
It is the biggest help.
One reason is a phenomenon of evil spirits working on the minds of any weak person close to you, against you, especially if they can't influence you. Prayer reduces that influence.
The other reason is that prayer is a powerful direct tool of activism.
A final reason is that you need divine assistance to act and argue effectively in the field, especiall against those who may have demonic inspiration.
Methods of Activism:
This is what you should be doing, regardless of how to do it:
Finding, Preserving, and Sharing evidence of the Truth: this is usually the most important action in activism, foundational to all the others. Not only does it create positive change through others, but even more importantly, it helps you be sure that your activism is on the right side of the issue before you begin. When you have the evidence, it's very easy to show why you do what you do. Complaining to Authorities: This is an essential step when the authorities are on the wrong path. It doesn't compel them, but gives them a chance to reconsider, and, even if it accomplishes nothing else, absolves you of moral responsibilty for the implied consent you would be guilty of if you said nothing despite having the right to object.
Letters/emails of Complaint to your elected representative. It's not often that they seem to listen, in systems where actually doing anything their constituents want is not required to keep their office, but if you don't object you tacitly consent. Contacting all candidates in an election with your issue before the election date. Usually their contact information shows on the election authority website. This is a special technique, because in the leadup to an election, you have the right to contact many potential candidates with your issue, rather than just the right to contact the one winner (your one now-elected representative) after the election. Not only does it get your issue noticed by more people, but they have more incentive to listen before the election than after it. Petitions: these aren't strong in compelling elected representatives to listen, but they are so easy to sign that they represent an extremely efficient way to do something politically meaningful and get yourself on the right side of history on any issue. It's a sorry thing to live through a major atrocity in the world, and despite having the right to object to it, saying nothing. With petitions, in just one click you can get your name on a list having made an objection. Public Protests: these have more political strength than petitions, and offer implicit emotional support to activists to know they are not alone. Unfortunately protests have been increasingly suppressed in recent years by Governments inventing ways to declare them a medical threat of contagion or illegal in some way. Really there shouldn't be any such thing as an illegal peaceful protest.
Creating Deterrents for Moral Trespass: These are methods of making sure that those doing the unwanted action face some practical cost to doing so, and as much as possible, they are made to know about the cause and effect relationship.
Cutoff: Show them that the moral trespass will or means a reduction or end to your any ongoing support. Separation: Show them that the moral trespass means the risk or end of your relationship with them. Boycotts: This is using the power of choice away from the benefit of the wrongdoer to punish them financially within your moral and legal rights to do so. Losing votes or purchases or other forms of public support is a cost most politicians and business organizations should care about. You're not harming what's theirs, but only redirecting what's yours. This is different from lawfare, which is using the Law to attack someone's wealth, which however legal is not dealing with what's yours but theirs, and for this reason far more likely to be an immoral action. Physical Defense? This is a last resort, only to be used when unjustly threatened by immediate harm, and only to relief of the threat (never to revenge). It is morally dangerous because it does or may do harm. Moreover it is dangerous to your cause because even if it is moral, the other side might portray your defense as an unprovked attack by omitting from their reporting the threat you were responding to (especialy in the case of resisting authorities where even them pointing a gun at your head isn't considered a therat to defend from). As if that wasn't bad enough, violent retaliation of even one person in your group can cast a shadow over the entire group in the mind of the Public, if reported in a way to encourage that. It's usually better to take a peaceful legal approach to remedies than a physical response, even if it takes longer, so that you cannot be portrayed as an aggressor. Lastly, it's difficult and sometimes impossible to keep innocents harmless to violent action; militaries tend to accept civilian casualties as a matter of course, often far more numerous than the enemies they are targetting: you don't want to be harming innocents. For all these reasons, physical defense is so much a last resort that it might not even be worth doing, for your cause, if you want to stay on the morally right side from all viewpoints.
Tools of Activism:
These are things to help you do what activist things you want to do:
Prayer. This is a compulsive force which anyone can use. Done the right way, it is very powerful action, and not an inaction. Email. It's not just for sharing cat videos. QR codes: these are a convenient way of sharing internet URLs in-person. You can keep them at the ready in a folder on your phone. Custom T-Shirts: these help you get a message across with out effort or trespassing anyone. Posting on Existing website Platforms: these get tremendous information across once set up properly Your Own News Website, Broadcast, or Channel: these get tremendous information across once set up properly Holding Signs on Street Corners it's a free way to get a message across in Public; way better than doing nothing Your Mouth: If you have a voice, use it to advance the good, especially to speak up for innocent victims who cannot speak up for themselves. Music. There are some songs with activist themes. Comedy. This is an excellent way to get a message across on an emotional level while bypassing the person's mental instinct to argue against it. Voting This is powerful if used wisely, to always vote only for the candidate with the best policy proposals for the long-term good of the nation no matter their apparent chance to win, and never for anything you understant to be evil, not even if it is the 'lesser evil'. Unfortunately, if the majority don't vote or vote for more foolish or selfish criteria than that, it falls apart. Still, as an individual, it is your civic and moral duty to do it well.
Activism Which Most People Can do:
PASSIVE OPTIONS: Once set up, these are effective without requiring further effort.
Subscribe to mailing lists of the best news organizations. It makes it so easy when the news keeps coming to you. Set up an automatic monthly donation to the news organizations, political parties, or charities doing the best work. It could be an automatic payroll deduction, or an automatically recurring charge on a credit card.
ACTIVE OPTIONS: These are things which require you to invest time, energy,
and/or money to bring about a good result. They work best with regular commitment.
Give Support where Needed: Evil activists seem to understand that any initiative for their cause needs their support, while good activists have been deficient in that understanding (perhaps due to adoption of belief systems which don't require it). Regardless of that, the best place to start your activism (after prayer) is giving practical support to those already on the front lines for good causes. This includes to: Identify and support the best truth (news) organizations. Activism begins with realizing what is wrong to fix, so it is absolutely critical that those exposing the wrong have the support they need to continue to do that. They are chronically in need of funding because they tend to be unconventional and controversial and so do not attract conventional advertising or grants. Identify and support worthy political parties. This is an important place to start giving, because change at the Government level tends to have more powerful effects than anything else on Earth.
How to identify worthy polical parties? Start by going to your election authority, finding all of the registered parties, and searching their platform/policy documents for key words on the issues most important to you. For the most important issues, you might find only one party which has the right approach on that issue. So that's your party to support.
Fortunately, like with charity, depending on where you live, you can usually get an official receipt for your donation which can save you income taxes when you file.
Unfortunately, unlike with charity, there are often hard contribution limits per year that you need to not exceed. Look for them on the elction authority website; the party donation page or office may also offer this information. Identify and support worthy charities for the needs you care about alleviating. Like all good giving, this is a great help to others, society, and dramatically improves your spiritual life: so much so that typically those blessings will take shape into practial benefits later on.
He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse.
(Holy Bible KJV, Proverbs, 28:27)
Be careful to investigate your charity for serious involvement in issues and ways which are evil (though they might be socially accepted evil). This is usually much more quiet than what they say they will use the money for. Check them out on alternative news sites for example. Pray for God to show you, and react when He does. Keep abreast of news from diverse sources. This will help you be alerted to issues early,
and have a diverse array of opinions and evidence to decide between. You will be difficult to trap in lies. Keep a copy of articles, filing them by subject. It's this slow accumulation of pieces of the puzzle that you start to see the big picture of the state of our world. Otherwise your mind is merely bouncing between daily articles on different topics, never seeing the overall. Discern which issues are most important. Normally these are the issues of widest and longest impact to life. We suggest:
Understand and defend human rights, whether for yourself or others. Don't be attach importance based on amount of media coverage or enthusiasm. For example, the results of professional sports matches,
though persistently covered with great media enthusiasm as something of tremendous importance, make minimal difference to our society in the long-term. In contrast,
many places of cruelty are known but hidden and rarely talked about, so that by being out of mind they may be permitted to continue.
Find the truth based on evidence. Put this ahead of trusting anyone (absolute trust should be in God alone).
Keep evidence., especially the most official, verifiable, and emotional. This helps you share the truth as well as defend your words if necessary. Don't expect to be believed without evidence. Gather your own original data if feasible. Yes you can do this; you don't have to always rely on others' data. For example, you could do your own survey of the Public or even just your friends and family, the more the better, to get a picture of how people feel about or are affected by an issue. Spread the truth through whatever channels which you have the right to use. You know people. You know how to make an email with a link in seconds. When you're with them, you often have the chance to suggest something to watch (why not a truth documentary?). You can do this quickly for free.
In a wise society, only this would be required, because people would welcome the information
and know to act on it.
Report Key Events with whatever details, testimony, and evidence are feasible to gather and present alongside. Sometimes you might notice something unusual which is a threat to your community (whether that community physically-based or cause-based), and you should alert that good community as early as possible. However a legitimate threat is not always what authorities tell you is a threat. For example, human rights and exercising them are not a threat, no matter what the Government says. Be eyes and ears for good, but not a snitch for evil. Sometimes you need to 'buy the book'. Independent researchers often want or need to see some compensation from their work, and they certainly deserve it. Often they write a book for sale, and the very best evidence is in that book. You need to buy it instead of relying only on free information around the internet. This helps you (with the best information) and helps them (with revenue) and helps the Cause (with getting the best information out to more people). Disobey Immoral Orders simultaneously with enough people in the same role that immoral authorities lose that function.
This is very powerful and well within your rights.
As a human being, you are responsible for your own actions even if you are ordered to do them, because you can choose to obey or not.
If enough of you in the same role refuse to obey at the same time, such that the authority loses some important function, those who rule over you cannot rule and the regime must change.
There are two ways to depose an authority. The usual way is for a higher authority or process to replace them. However they can also be replaced if people refuse to obey them,
because that immediately no longer makes them the leader, by definition, forcing some other type of governance to form. How powerful is this method? It's extremely powerful and instant. For example, in the COVID crisis in Ontario, Canada, no amount of petitions and appeals (not even at his house)
could sway Premier Doug Ford from persisting in implementing more and more severe social restrictions.
In fact, protests only seemed to make him more angry and punative.
But when he made it the law that police could stop people at
random to know where they were going, the Toronto Police (the police of just one city in Ontario) simply said they wouldn't enforce that.
Rather than allow that to cancel his leadership, the Premier immediately repealed that part of the law. Read about it here.
Use the power of your right to choose in other peaceful but powerful ways. For example, your every purchase supports that type of product while denying support to other types.
Boycotts are effective in bringing pressure against organizations that depend on our ongoing support, such as puchasing or voting. Separate a percentage of your income to give to worthy causes, such as 10% (a tithe), but do not let anyone but God Himself lay claim to it. For example, this money is not necessarily for your religious organization to claim, lest it become a kind of slavery of you to them. This money is a matter between you and God, for where you believe it is best used for God's purposes in or through your life.
Having the money already set aside in advance makes it far less painful to give when a need is noticed.
Often whether a good initiative exists or continues in society is a matter of funding more than any other factor.
Note that where the money is best use for God is not necessarily the same as were you can get an official receipt of a kind which benefis you in filing your income tax. In particular, the most aggressive workers to the cause are sometimes not even allowed to give tax receipts, because they sometimes criticize the Government. Our recommendation is to keep focus on using the money for God's purposes first and accept any other credits or blessings as strictly secondary.
Similarly, some charities will ofter 'matching bonuses' to entice you to give more. The quality of the charity matters more than their promise of a matching bonus, especially when you have no way of checking if a bonus actually applied.
Regardless of cause, you have a responsibility to stop your giving to any cause coming to an evil result. The idea of giving is to produce more overall good than keeping the resource yourself.
Here are some suggestions on how you could use your tithe money:
Give to news sources, religious teachers, and charities doing the very best work for the Public good, preferably in the form of an automatically monthly recurring donation (this helps them plan the future and relieves you from having to remember). Just be sure to look into their work, as sometimes the biggest charities cooperate too much with questionable Establishment narratives and initiatives. Give to your place of worship. Give to someone in need for a good purpose so long as you are not already obligated to support them. You might not get a tax receipt for it, but you should be responding to the needs God shows you, receipt or not. Give in paid subscriptions for the best initatives in truth. If you aren't paying for your news, someone else is, and they might not have your interests at heart. You might subscribe to the Epoch Times for example. Give to the charities with the wisest and most moral platforms. Support someone with a good initiative which needs to get established. Defend activists for good from need and attack. Help anyone who falls into need for a good purpose through no fault of their own.
Help somebody in need, so long as
their intent is also good, which is a co-requirement (along with their need). Beware that without their good intent, you may find your help only used to fuel evil desires.
Gather with others of like-mind. There are ways to find them, even when such opinions are rare. For example, you might start a Meetup.com group. Defend your allies in this good purpose. It's a large battle, there are two sides, and you have allies on your side. The prominent ones, such as truth-sharers, tend to be focuses of attack of the other side. It would be a serious loss to your cause, and perhaps your life, to allow them to be disabled. For your cause you should rush to support and defend them. Anyone working for truth and the defense of life is your ally worthy of your help in time of need, and the more they are doing to support your side, the more important to ensure that they are never disabled. If a cause is unworthy, that you cannot conscientiously support them like that, but could if they changed, let them know as clearly as possible. When you turn away their donation requests and tell them why, it's a lot more powerful for your cause than just turning them away. If you silently turn them away, they are left to guess the reason why, and they might guess conmpletely wrong (like think they used the wrong picture on the appeal for example). Ways you could do this include:
If the appeal comes by telemarketer, rather than just hang up on them, first tell them you will not support for what reason. If the appeal comes by mail with a self-addressed envelope, send it back writing why you will not support them.
Object through your official political representatives. They might ignore you, but, in a representative democracy, this is the channel to make your views known which
that system of governance provides us, so we should use it first before resorting to anything else can be justified. It can be as easy as an email. It's more likely to be effective the earlier in their elected term you do it. Organize Petitions. These can be ignored but when they attract large numbers, they consolidate will on one side of an issue and that is something politicians
must take notice of. Organize peaceful protests. Like petitions, they can be ignored but consolidate will on one side of an issue, and do this better than petitions.
In other words, even if the Governent tries to ignore protests, they serve to encourage the Public and dissenters within Government that they are not alone and that the Government is not
loved.
Organize community commitments and preparedness to defy tyranny, especially before the fact. That way, however fast tyranny might happen again, each individual knows they are not alone but already have a freedom support network to rely on. If you are a public official, use your authority and resources
entrusted to you only for the most long-term good of the public.
This includes priorities such as:
disallowing any clear blasphemy against God the Creator
disallowing killing of innocents in any form or by any excuse
not participating in war except as self-defense after already being
attacked
not accepting incentives or engaging in loyalties potentially
against the public good
not taking any oath to serve any good but the public good
leaving public indebtedness no worse than you found it
leaving the environment no worse than you found it
leaving the state of inalienable human rights no worse than you
found it
Ensuring that whatever laws you approve, or allow to stand, are morally right. Promptly, accurately, and completely informing the public of everything we have a moral right to know.
Raise money for worthy causes. It's not just you who can donate. Raise publicity for worthy speakers. Help them get in front of a crowd if their ideas deserve to be. Support the action and personal expenses of the most dedicated activists. The less they have to worry about this, the more good work they can accomplish.
Just as it's a waste of talent for the best brain surgeon to be spending much time fixing his/her roof, so too it's a waste
if the best activists for the free public good must spend their time doing mundane things for their support.
I have seen extremely talented activists stop extremely good work for lack of basic support, and it is a terrible waste,
especially when the world has given so much money to not only so much nonsense, but so much evil.
On the other hand, some activists continue to benefit society today because they received timely support.
Demand Investigation and Prosecution for Public Atrocities: It does no good to allow murderers of individual people to be prosecuted but allow those responsible for the deaths of many, and other atrocities, to be ignored. However long it taks for evidence to come to light, perpetrators of crimes against humanity must be found and prosecuted not only to send a deterring message that there are consequences for such actions, but more immediately to prevent the same, often influential, people, from concocting some other crisis. Direct Action. Maybe you can do something appropriate yourself to directly alleviate the problem.
Suggested Rules of Peaceful Protest:
An article from a legal website is: I’m going to a protest. What do I need to know?
The following are our opinions but not legal advice:
Gather the biggest group you can who can agree on one problem and one change they want to fix it. Nevertheless even just one person on the street with a sign can make a difference. Work only within your rights and the rights of others.
Don't do or say anything you don't have the legal right to do or say where you have the legal right to do or say it.
Assertiveness beyond this can easily work against you morally, legally, and in public opinion, especially if opponents are using all their knowledge and imagination to find some way to accuse you. Make sure everyone in the group (perhaps even by written contract) is on the same page with these rules. Everyone in your group should know what the agreed message is (for example, vaccine freedom of choice) Everyone in your group should know a designated spokesperson to direct any media inquiries to. You just don't want any poorly chosen words by one person used against the group. No one should raise divisive topics within or without the group during the action which are not agreed on through he entire group, not even if they are closely related issues (for example, vaccine safety or efficacy is unrelated to vaccine freedom of choice and can divide a group acting on the latter) No one should use unnecessary and politically sensitive words or symbolism, nor deface anything especially not politically sensitive things. Even one single poorly chosen symbol, in a protest of thousands of people,
has been focused on by mainstream media to cast a negative light on the entire protest (for example one swastika or one confederate flag, in thousands of protestors,
as focused on in this article: Thousands in Ottawa protest COVID mandates, many rebuked No one should initiate, threaten, or encourage violence, looting, vandalism, or hate.
This is not the way of good activism and is the fastest way to bring the Law against your entire group. Activism favoured by the Establishment usually enjoys immunity from such accusations (such as the approval for burning/looting of the Black Lives Matter protests), but anti-Establishment activism tends to be punished by the Establishment without any tolerance. Don't obstruct the flow of traffic, including pedestrians, at all. The accusation of obstruction is a favourite used to prosecute activists even when they are on public property, and potentially bring the full force of the Law against you, or even they can trigger emergency powers just because you did this (like was done in the Freedom Convoy protests 2022 in Canada). Don't disrupt civilian life or come close to it. It may seem attractive, for example, to obstruct traffic but that is exactly what brings public powers against you. For example, the Freedom protests in early 2022 in Canada were going well until they started to do these things, after which the Government instituted emergency powers, severely punished the protestors, and made some of the emergency powers permanent. Now Canadians are worse off than before protesting. Research all possibly relevant laws ahead of time. Be aware that each type of activism, and protesting different types of things at different times and places, can be illegal. For example, in some places it's illegal to protest abortion within a certain distance of the home of an abortionist. Unfortunately it's difficult and should have been unnecessary to know where they live. NEVER break even the smallest law during the protest which is not absolutely necessary to your message for you to break. Understand that the usual tactic of the wicked is to wait and watch for you to break any law or commit any socially offensive action of any kind, and try to use even one instance of that to accuse your entire movement. Any law you break is an open invitation for them to get you, legally, and you can't expect tolerance or mercy. You need to do it with legal and moral perfection. Never have being arrested as your goal. Being arrested is humiliating, can cause you months or years of legal problems, can do serious damage to your ability to be employed or travel, and does nothing for your cause. Even if you are not breaking the law, but asked by police or officials to tone things down in a way which mildly hurts your movement, unless you know the law and the system better than them, it's usually far better for you or your cause to comply than defy.. When it's little difference to comply but big danger you escape by making a small purpose-unthreatening change you should take that deal. In a peaceful world, this not only builds cooperation on all sides but helps you escape traps you are unaware of, because there are too many laws for everyone to know, police tend to know the law better than most people as they do it every day, and before they pounce on you (because they know you are breaking a law) they tend to give you a small warning which you need to notice: the kind of sly warning which is silent about them pouncing on you if you refuse. Normally their requests are not a major harm to you or your movement, but if they pounce on you it almost certainly will be. Beware that, in the real world, even if you comply with what all sides ask you to do, they might call the police on you anyway just because they hate what you're doing and want to hurt you. Although you should tend to yield to police/officials, you can usually ignore opponent civilians, except to respect their rights. They could lie about what the law is, or bend what they say you did, but they have no power to enforce the Law against you. Nevertheless pay attention to all warnings from anyone. It might indicate a real danger for you to check up on. For example, if someone says what your'e doing is illegal, they could be lying, but somehow it might be, and if you didn't check on it before, it's better to check on it with your phone in the moment than not check at all. If there is a law, and you find it before your enemies do, you have a chance to escape. Minimize conversation with all obvious opponents as it tends to only escalate conflict and increases the chance that you might say either the wrong thing or something open to interpret the wrong way. When you must speak to opponenets, try to speak only with the most specific language in the most peaceful way. Don't speak to police more than your cause absolutely requires. Remember that all information can be used against you andONLY against you never for you, and anything said to police is considered a statement in court. Don't allow anyone to bring weapons to or near a peaceful protest. Even one case of a weapon in one vehicle of someone attending the protest can be construed as intent for violence of all protesters (as was done to the Freedom Convoy 2022 protest). Make protest signs of the most unifying possible message, using the fewest possible words, in the biggest possible type: they must be instantly understood at a glance from a distance. Keep a strong grip on your signage at all moments: the can catch the wind pretty well and a gust of wind must not be permitted to blow it away from you. If someone in the group does something foul, immediately make clear that your group is not for it and will not tolerate this activity. Otherwise it refelects on the whole group. Don't make hateful remarks against any people or group of people, but only ideas and policies. People are not the problem but their behaviour sometimes is. Targetting specific people is also more legally dangerous. Obscure your leadership as they tend to be unfairly targetted for prosecution to the easiest harm of the movement (for example as happened to the Freedom Convoy 2022 protest in Ottawa, Canada). Be aware that your cellphone can give away information about you, such as your location and identity. Understand that there are stealth weapons, such as microwave and acustic, that can and have been used against protestors with minimal reprocussions to the authorities using them: example article Police confirm use of controversial LRAD device at Canberra protest; example video AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND Governments Use Of Weapons Against Protesters - CONFIRMED..! Pray before and during the event, as a group, if feasible. This helps the action on a spiritual level. Know if you need a permit, and don't step outside of it.
The Wrong Approaches:
Blaming God: It has become a shockingly common sentiment for people to be angry with God for not intervening in some matter despite having the power to do so. The problems with this attitude are that:
God is the most powerful and reliable help available to the side of good, and destroying your relationship with Him works against good activism. God is the game-changing help whom the wicked cannot access and cannot win against. It sets the Created up as judge of the Creator. This is a foul disorder arising from pride. It logically sets us up for a more severe judgment in the Afterlife, if we dared to judge God.
[1] Judge not, that ye be not judged.
[2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
(Holy Bible, KJV, Matthew 7:1 - 7:2)
It assumes that we know everything, seen and unseen, including the intent of the Creator. There is so much to know about God that no one can ever know it, and you can't judge what you don't understand. We expect to be judged by intent but do we allow others that courtesy? It creates an illogically conflicted expectation of God. We expect God to respect and permit our free will, but when that free will, especially the free will of others around us, doesn't come to a good result, we tend to blame God for allowing it. It's usually blaming Someone else for humanity's fault. Most problems in this world are humanity's own doing, although that is not always obvious, and it's unfair to God for what we have done as a people. For example, if we blame God that there are so many hungry people, we should remember that God has given humans a planet which, if managed correctly, could support far more life than we have now. Even just a tiny percentage of the USA military budget would end world hunger. The problem is our choice not God's. It avoids personal responsibility. It's much easier to blame someone else than take responsibility for our role in our world. For example, how many people take personal responsibiltiy for what the politicians they elect do? If we blamed ourselves we might do something. God doesn't owe us anything. We owe Him. It's supposed to be a 2-way relationship. We're supposed to invite God into areas of our lives and society, and then He disseminates His protection. Put another way, if we want His protection we should build that kind of relationship, not treat Him as though He doesn't exist and then accuse Him for not protecting us. For example, did you notice the rise in school shootings since prayer was removed from schools? When there is a crisis, did those affected pray beforehand for God's protection or did they ignore God? Are there other elements in their life, such as sin, which would also weaken His protection?
Venting your frustration on the wrong people, such as your family, rather than the people responsible, such as elected officials. Initiating violence. Violence is the last resort of good activism, if used at all, and initiating it must never be done. Violence should only be used defensively, especially to defend life after an equal or higher level of violence has been initated by the other side, and only against those combatants who are threatening. Collateral Harm. All offensive actions must be designed to identify and protect innocents. The other side may accept collateral harm, but it is not a feature of good activism to do so. Threatening. In conventional law, threatening someone is often less defensible than actually harming them. Not that harming them is better, morally, but threats do no good: if you threaten them it gives them an excuse to strike, the Law a reason to prosecute you, and doesn't advance or secure your cause in any way. Accusing anyone of evilding when you are not sure of their intent. Remember that evildoing requires both a wrong act and done with deliberate intent, the latter usually being difficult to prove. This is the difference between spreading misinformation, which is an act, and lying, which is misinformation spread with an intent to deceive. It's better to stick to communicating observable facts than try to see into someone else's heart.
Verbal Objections to Joining Good Activism:
Yes, there are those who will actually argue against doing anything, such as with these arguments:
"An individual can't change the world". That's not true, for two reasons:
First, each individual has the power to affect the world which is a change: even picking up one piece of litter and putting it into the appropariate waste bin is a real change which almost every individula can do. Even if you pare paralyzed, you can pray. Second, an individual can recruit or inspire (intentionally or not) others to the cause.
"It won't make any difference". This is the argument that although you can cause change, it will be totally useless for your cause. However any change towards your cause is useful, especially any noticable change. It's difficlut to know the cascade of effects which even the smallest change can eventually make. "Your vote doesn't matter". Your individual vote might not matter in the final election results, but that won't be known until they are counted. Some elections have been a complete tie where one more vote would have mattered and then those who didn't vote often regret it. What you can be sure of is that your vote will matter a lot for yourindividual moral responsibility. "Any vote for someone who doesn't have a chance to win (based on pre-election polls) is a wasted vote". Polls are not a completely reliable predictor of final results, and what's more important, the best people deserve our vote both for our own moral responsiblity of choice and to encourage the best evolution for our democracy. For example, if someone truly great decides to run for office, but didn't receive any votes because he or she was identified as great but not as having a realistic chance to win, when that person sees that not a single person voted for them, they will be strongly discouraged from offering the option again. "None of the options are good." It's true that sometimes there is no good option offered to you, and this is a sad way that our democracy can be controlled. Nevertheless you should be sure that you know all your options, by checking with the authority for those options (such as the election authority) rather than news media. If there is still no good option, you should still go down and spoil your ballot in protest, such as by writing the name of your god on it. To not vote implies that you don't care who or what rules you and that's not an acceptable message for a moral person to make: for one thing you lose all moral rights to criticize whatever government forms afterwards. "I'm voting for the least evil option". Actually if you ever vote for something you recognize, by your own morality whatever that is, as evil, you betray your own morality and make yourself fully complicit in their evil, instead of just an observer of it. Morally that's a really bad place to be. It might even be worse than the evil leader, because although they offered the evil option, you chose it. Looking at it another way, presentation to voters of a 'more evil' option than them can be used as a scarecrow to get people to foolishly vote for the lesser evil.
Beware Typical Opponent Tactics:
Automatic dismissal of presenters if they approach the wrong way. That is why you must always approach only the right way: within your rights, respecting their rights and choice, and respecting established authority. Refusing to allow you to speak on a topic or to present any evidence. The same people normally don’t do this with officials, but do it to individuals. The Establishment has been running clear public campgaigns to discourage anyone from listening to individuals instead of officials. It’s a great way to save you time, because you get the answer without mcuh effort, but it’s an extremely prejudiced, contemptuous, humiliating, and unwise way to treat someone else to dismiss what they have to say before you even know what they have to say. Interruption. This is to prevent you from starting what you have to say, or break the thought, and delay you so long that your thought is forgotten. Raising tangental issues in long monologues. This is usual to distract if you are winning any argument, in an attempt to nullify whatever truth you have just spoken by drawing attention away from it to literally anything else for as long as possible. Naked Choice. Those who want to do evil often use their right to choose, and the demand you respect it, to continue with the evil and try to portray you as evil if you give them any kind of resistance to that.
The right to choose is immoral to use as the only reason to do something on any moral issue. Choice doesn’t make anything right. Accusing you of wanting everyone to do as you say as your intent and motivation. This is an attempt to portray you as evil even for just spreading truth. Their unilateral withdrawal of supports which you rely on from them, not only without warning, but at your most vulnerable moment. It’s best to always have a backup plan for your supports at least in the back of your mind, if not ready to go. Non-Information. They cannot be relied on to alert you of things important to your good activism. You might be amazed at how they claim to forget or didn't think to tell you. Sabotage. They might actually ruin things of yours which they have access to and which your work depends on. Threatening Police or legal action. On the surface this shouldn't bother good activists, because they intend no harm. Unfortunately some laws may protect evil more than good, or the person calling the police may use exaggerated or false claims to entice them to act against you. Giving You Immoral Orders: Those with authority over you may abuse that authority to order you to do things which are morally cruel. Often these things are legal, even though morally evil, leaving you with no legal defense.
The best way to defend yourself is to not allow yourself to be in a situation where you are obligated to follow an evil order or face severe punishments. In particular, your livelihood should be as independent as you can manage.
Certainly if you realize that your commander not only made a mistake, but is actually evil, you should do all you reasonably can to escape from being under their command.
Regardless, if you are given a clearly morally evil order, however legally valid, you are morally obligated to refuse it. Therefore don’t set yourself up so that is going to be a big problem. Taking Pot shots at your work in your hearing.
A phenomenon of good activism is the tendency of other people to attack good work, even while permitting much evil.
An especially insidious and emotionally damaging tactic of opponents who have frequent access to you is them making occasional quips which degrade the good ideas or good work you promote. That they will focus attack on your most good work, rather than anything else, is evidence of evil intent. Their strategy, whether conscious or unconscious (possibly demon-incited without the human host realizing it) is to make an attack on you small enough that it seems to be within their rights to make, yet painful enough to provoke you to defend yourself, at which point they quickly escalate the conflict careful to portray you as the perpetrator: either for attacking their choice, or attacking their free speech, or simply that you must be guilty if you are in any fight because it ‘takes two’ to have a fight.
The trap not to fall into here is believing that a simple fact-based statement from you will correct the situation. It won’t. Once their intent is evil, they will not allow what you say or present, not even the clearest evidence or logic, to come to good in them. You would be escalating the conflict for nothing, exhausting yourself for nothing, and portraying yourself as aggressive for nothing.
Better approaches are to either: ignore their pot shots as their free speech, pray for them (this does help), and leave those relationships (it’s degrading to you to live with deliberate degradation, especially when you could leave). Prejudice. This is an internal attitude where the person has decided, for superficial reasons, that you or what you have to offer are not worth considering, even before they hear it. For example, in the case of contempt, it is because they have decided that you, everything you are, and everything you think are inferior to them.
Due to this often secret decision against you, they will not allow any seed you plant in their life or in their control to come to any good. In fact, the more you try to invest in the relationship, the less they respect you for not recognizing and leaving the abuse they have decided for you.
It is a sad fact of our society today that although our society pretends to hate certain types of prejudice, most people judge information by superficial factors, even appearances of association, rather than logic or evidence. That's why, for example, most television marketing is done by 'soft sell' (emotional) methods and why so many products are marketed primarily simply by paying celebrities to be seen using them, rather than bothering to explain any logical benefits to the consumer. Although some forms of prejudice are illegal (such as based on: race or gender), most are not (such as based on: weight, beauty, type of house/car, wardrobe, position, income, and almost any other factor). In fact, many motivational public speakers insist that we should only associate with people who are (appear to be) successful, and away from those who (appear to be) unsuccessful, on the presumption that the former must have useful things to teach us, and the latter must not have any.
Contempt wastes your time, energy, and resources for hidden reasons which you cannot change by any argument or evidence, but only by prayer (to crack the spiritual wall between you and the other person's mind). Aside from prayer, the best approach is to move on to an entirely different (not collaborating) group of people as soon as possible.
Saving Face. Many people seem to resist good advice or information out of a desire to not appear less than you by following what you say. To them, compliance is not about truth but a statement of pecking order and they don't want to compromise their position in that order. In fact they seem to enjoy resisting your advice, as though the more they do, the more they show they are in control of the relationship between you, and powerful than you, because they can dismiss anything you say or show by the power of their free choice. They only people whose adivce they follow are those who already clearly above them in society, and therefore no avoidable threat to their social status, such as: Government, Celebrities, or the very wealthy.
The priority to save face also makes even bringing up certain areas to improve virtually impossible with such people, if it implies a guilt or flaw with their personality now.
How to Wake People Up?
A key question in activism based on unpopular truth is how to get the unpopular view to become accepted and popular, even when Government, mainstream media, and mainstream educatino may all be propping up the unpopular view.
What works to wake people out of the lie and into the truth? Here are thoughts from experience:
Evidence is supposed to be all you need, if it is strong enough. Evidence supposedly speaks for itself. It shouldn't matter who is presenting it, only its own fundamentals, such as where and how it was obtained. Verifiable official documents from the official source are examples of high quality evidence.
Unfortunately collection and presentation of quality evidence alone doesn't work reliably in practice, for these reasons:
Proof and Belief are Subjective. Although evidence is objective, proof and belief are subjective. In other words, everyone has their own threshold at which point there is enough evidence of enough quality that they are willing to accept it as 'proof' that something is true. Otherwise there are ways to dismiss any evidence as insufficient, such as to say it could be fake, or the decision-maker can simply say that they choose to believe something else, regardless of any evidence, as a function of their free choice. Many people judge based on prejudice, to judge a presentation by the presenter before they even hear it. They've learned that it's not OK to prejudge based on race, but they still do it on many other criteria, a favourite being appearance of financial or career success, especially when that success relates to the topic being presented. This is why, for example, only atheltic bodies are used to sell fitness equipment, even though the equipment is often too new for there to be any chance that that person got that body with that equipment. Many people don't want to be bothered with inconvenience, not even inconvenient ideas. By personal experience, the vast majority of people care nothing for right or wrong (except if they feel wronged, at which time they suddenly have a keen sense of what is wrong and why) or the good of society but only what immediately and directly affects them. Most of the biggest, society-wide issues, don't affect them immediately and directly until it's too late to stop them. Trying to warn them in advance tends to fall on deaf ears. There are lots of ways any evidence can be brought into doubt. No matter how improbable, the slightest chance of your evidence being fake, however unreasonable, can be used as a reason to dismiss it, even without any evidence to make that accusation. For example, though you make have photograph or video evidence, it might be rejected because it is possible to fake that. As for audio speech, they can tell you it must be taken out of context, even while they refuse to listen to the context. This keeps the burden of proof on the presenter, and keeps convenience and power on the side of the listener, which is why listeners seem to like it so much. Eventually you can't proof every possibility to everyone's complete satisfaction and you can fail. Do they demand the same extreme quality of evidence on the views they agree with, or is it only the views they disagree with?
Do a demonstration. This makes it real, right now, to them. Not every issue is open to a demonstration, but if yours is, this might be the way to break the barrier and get them to start to question things. For example, with the COVID-19 vaccine issue, you might try doing a magnet test: seeing if magnets of modest strength will stick to their arms where they received the needle. Show an activist song or comedy. Many people accept a message easier when it's presented as comedy or a work of fiction than a straight list of facts. Facts their instinct is to try to disprove, but comedy and fiction are usually accepted without that resistance. Don't pressure anyone. If you try to force their interest or choice, pride leads them to reject whatever you want them to accept just to attempt to teach you a lesson to respect them and their chocie. Government pressure they don't seem to mind, though, as they say: "What can you do?". Don't tell them they're doomed if they don't listen. They don't like the negativity projected onto their life, and you might be wrong no matter how sure you are. Only present evidence, and risk, but let them decide the doom part.
How to Identify Cruelties Condoned by Society:
Identify all products and services which concern destruction to or unnatural use of living things including things which presumably were living when they entered the production chain.
Especially focus on those which are best hidden from public view.
Trace how those things are actually produced or prepared.
If it's evil, expose it and work against it.
A Disappointing Experience
Although one person does have the potential to change the world, our experience is that other people, and even established activist organizations, cannot be relied on to partner with you for the cause of good, no matter how free or easy you make it for them, or how important or urgent the issue, or how strong your evidence or argument. They don't admit it, but most people only seem interested in what directly and immediately affects their business, family, or themseles, and as for beliefs or involvements, they only want to follow the leader who appears the strongest. That's why they ask you your credentials, or require someone else to introduce you on your credentials, before hearing you speak: because they judge the value of your words and evidence entirely on your show of strength, which is your list of abilities, accomplishments, authority, and resources otherwise known as credentials or credibility. That's why any show of weakness, however unrelated, even a stain on your shoe or a misplaced hair, can be used as a reason to ignore your work.
As for activist organizations, no matter what they say, if they make or expect money, even by donation drives, they tend to operate as businesses in practice to the point that their interest in their cause is not for the problem to actually end lest their income stop.
It's starting to look like the best way to achieve the most consistent activist results is to invest in your own support and skill first: not only so that you can personally accomplish more in the most reliable way (yourself), but so that others will eventually follow the show of strength that they unfortunately want to see (instead of habitually discrediting you and your work for literally any show of weakness however unrelated).
Summary:
Every conscious person can do something to change the world, and they should for being here.
Overall Recommendation: The best approach for righteous activism is for those in a position for rightful direct action to do that, those who can directly support it to do so, and everyone else focus on prayer and sharing evidence-based truth.
DISCLAIMER: This article is not written by a lawyer and even if it was it couldn't apply to all jurisdictions in the world equally. It is only meant as common sense advice.
|