5 Questions Every Real Resistance Group Must Honestly Answer
Can you and your group pass the test?
A lot of people think of resistance as this glamorous endeavor, filled with adrenaline and maybe even some dangerous (but still sexy) notoriety. Sure, once in a while it can be like that. Most of the time, however, resistance is decidedly unsexy, and the notoriety you might get is definitely not usually the kind where you’re seen as a positive force for good. Quite frankly, it’s hard and thankless, and when it’s done right most people will never know you did it.
We’ve spent the last month doing deep dives into various facets of group dynamics and trauma psychology, and today we’re going to put it all together. If your group cannot answer these five questions honestly—or if you realize your answers are problematic—then you aren’t a threat to your enemy. You’re a threat to yourself.
Question 1: Who Has Access to What, and Who Gave It to Them?
OPSEC matters, whether you’re a coach hiding your mouth as you call plays or a resistance member who’s part of a group that’s working behind the scenes. Infiltration, in its simplest form, is someone having access to information, people, or operations that they shouldn’t.
If you cannot explain a specific protocol in your group for who has access to the critical parts of your efforts, as well as why they have it and who gave it to them, then you have a problem.
Question 2: What Happens When Someone Violates a Boundary?
There’s a certain irony in a group seeking to resist tyrannical laws or an out-of-control government, yet allowing leaders and members to trample all over internal boundaries. What happens when you have a member that talks over everyone, dominates conversations, ignores other members’ input, pushes members to go beyond their values, or even misuses group resources? What happens when you become aware that your leader is not who he claims to be?
You might think that your group doesn’t have any of those problems. That’s awesome…but what would happen if it did? Would you handle the situation with integrity, even if that means ousting a member or leader? Or would you do as many others do, and cover it up? Would you kick the people who brought the concerns? Would you rationalize why you can keep them in the group? Would you call for ‘unity for the good of the cause’? Spoiler alert: it doesn’t actually help the cause at all, and in many cases, it will directly hurt your efforts.
A few years ago, a few of us went to a group’s leadership and specifically pointed out problems with a member. We showed evidence that he was a loose cannon at best, and an infiltrator at worst. The leaders told us that, “Yeah, he has an anger problem, and he does a lot of stupid and even dangerous things, and some of those things were in public and now linked to our group, and yeah his conduct is problematic, but he is loyal.” The group no longer exists under that banner, and that probably doesn’t surprise you. Loyalty is not a substitute for smart action, and liking does not equate to trustworthiness.
Question 3: Do You Have a Specific Goal, and a Plan to Meet It?
Emotions are very powerful motivators, and horrible decision drivers. If your organizing principles are shared grief or outrage, urgency, or even anger at a specific issue, then you are going to be reactive and emotional. Effective groups take their emotions out of their decision-making, and focus on what actions will actually move the needle.
Even before you start making plans for how you’ll further your cause, however, you need internal planning. Where is your infrastructure? Is it public or easily mappable by your opponents? Do you have a contingency plan for if key leaders and members get arrested, doxxed, or simply get pulled out of the group due to family or job issues?
One of the biggest objections I hear is that “we don’t have time to spend on all this planning. We need to focus on _____________ (insert slogan or jingoistic ideal here).” If you don’t have a specific goal, and a plan for how you will meet that goal, you’re not going to achieve much of anything.
Question 4: Can You Say No Without Guilt or Exile?
Groups that cannot handle internal dissent become echo chambers, running on toxic groupthink. In fact, groups who can’t constructively disagree and work through that conflict are eventually enslaved to the whims of the loudest and most toxic member. If that person also happens to be your ‘leader,’ you’re going to get dragged down a pretty dark path with a dead end.
Groups that can endure internal pushback, hear criticism, and be open to the concerns of members can also handle external pressure. If you can’t disagree or say no to something, that’s a sign of cultural immaturity. If your group can handle it but you personally can’t, that’s a sign of fawning.
Question 5: Who or What Are We Actually Protecting?
This question is by far the most uncomfortable for most groups. This is when you really hear any dysfunction or emotional drivers. If you ask 50 group members this question, you’ll have 45 different answers—and while you might think they’re close enough, the truth is that if you cannot articulate what you are trying to protect, then you are protecting something else.
A group that says “we are protecting the Constitution” often hasn’t read the whole thing, and often aren’t well-versed in more than the Bill of Rights and maybe Article I, Section 8. They get defensive when you say that, however, so what are they actually protecting?
Groups that claim to be protecting “a woman’s right to choose” usually are woefully uninformed as to the nitty-gritty statistics or biology of the issue, but God help you if you point that out. It’s a classic example of emotions driving beliefs.
Groups that hold “protecting the people’s rights” often get tripped up simply by asking ‘which people?’ ‘What does that look like?’ You’ll find that the leaders often either have no real clarity (mostly due to their own personal chaos), or they’re quite clear to themselves about what they want, and it has nothing to do with what the members think they signed up for.
It’s not a left vs. right issue; groups on both sides do it. But if they aren’t actually able to tell you in specific terms what they are working toward, what is it that they’re protecting instead?
Personal value and need to matter
Public image
Trauma-based psychological issues
Perhaps the biggest one is having to face the gap between who they want others to believe they are, and who they actually are.
Time after time, we’ve seen various leaders get outed as something completely opposite of what they preach or claim to be. Whether it’s a moral failing, financial grifting, lying about military status or experience, or simply being a toxic jerk, there’s a chasm between their presented character and the real one. That chasm becomes the group’s death sentence when hardly anyone dares to point it out and even fewer have the courage to do something about it.
Resistance Requires Honesty
Groups fall apart for a number of reasons, but one of the biggest is that people don’t want to ask hard questions. Worse still, they punish or drive out anyone who does want to ask them.
If your group can’t answer these questions—or worse yet, doesn’t want them asked to begin with—then you are already on the road to failure. So ask them: loudly, repeatedly, as part of your infrastructure. Ask before it’s too late.