...

Before I explain what my proposal is all about, I need to give out a disclaimer. I do not support using terrorism as a political tool in any way, for it goes against my values. This article is meant to describe a contingency plan for when authoritarians want elimination rather than compliance from their opposition, not an active plot to overthrow a sitting government.

The Center-Left needs to have its own militia network, and I genuinely find it to be a necessity, especially with the current political climate in America. We are living in a time of crisis right now, so I’ll be blunt.

Donald Trump, the sitting President of the United States at the time of this article, has been making it harder and harder to peacefully protest against government overreach. He has been normalizing the use of deadly force against American dissidents, and it has resulted in the deaths of Renée Nicole Good and Alex Pretti. This same man is now preparing to cancel elections and implement martial law in America. These are dark times, so we cannot afford to be caught unprepared for the worst-case scenario imaginable.

Now I know what you’re wondering. You’re wondering, “Why do we need a militia network?” Allow me to explain everything, and I promise you that it will all make sense.

As the video above illustrates, militias in America are nothing new. For decades, the American Right has used contemporary militias such as the Three Percenters and the Oath Keepers to prepare for a coming civil war, so another militia network existing wouldn’t be unprecedented in America’s political atmosphere. What would be unprecedented is a militia network that supports the interests of liberals and progressives in America.

“But how does any of this warrant a militia network for our cause?” you continue to inquire. “Can’t we just continue to use non-violent forms of resistance against authoritarianism like we always do?”

Well, I have some bad news for you. Non-violent resistance is only effective against authoritarians when they value their reputation and their aim is to make their opposition submissive. What if Donald Trump and his supporters don’t care about their reputation? What if they don’t want to make us submissive towards them and prefer to eliminate us instead?

Once authoritarians begin to treat their own legitimacy as expendable and start favoring destruction over obedience, non-escalatory tactics in the form of non-violent resistance become ineffective. When that happens, you need to step up your game by preparing for the necessity of an armed rebellion. The key word is “prepare,” not “instigate.” We need to think like Batman. Just as Batman has contingency plans for when members of the Justice League go rogue, we liberals and progressives need contingency plans for when authoritarians finally make their dream of establishing a stratocracy into a reality. When that happens, there has to be a balance between violence and non-violence made.

“Oh, but Zigzag,” I hear you say. “Wouldn’t it be unlawful for civilians to form a militia network in America?”

The answer to that question is: Not as much as you think it is. The truth is that the Second Amendment to the Constitution has a clause that specifically says, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

So then what does this mean for us? Does this mean that we can treat the tyrants who oppress us as a free-for-all and start attacking random ICE agents? No, it definitely does NOT mean that.

It means that we have a constitutional right to use our paramilitary presence to discourage (not kill) ICE agents from firing upon peaceful protesters in the first place. If we strategically position ourselves between anti-ICE protesters on one side and ICE agents on the other with military fatigues on our backs and battle rifles in our hands, then the ICE agents who see us protecting our fellow peaceful protesters might actually think twice before firing the first shot.

The cowardly ICE agents that we see brutalizing civilians are not battle-hardened commandos but bullies who prey on weakness. Once bullies start to see that there’s no weakness to prey upon, they’re more likely to turn their tails and run than to hold their positions and fight.

“Oh, but Zigzag,” I hear you say again. “What if the ICE agents see that the militia is protecting peaceful protesters and decide to fire the first shot anyway?”

That’s what cameras are for. Peaceful protesters already use their phones to record ICE agents, so there’s no reason why citizen soldiers who serve in the militia can’t also wear bodycams for a similar purpose. Even if ICE agents were to fire the first shot, documentation in the form of video recordings would make it clear that they fired the first shot, not us.

“But Mahatma Gandhi believed in non-violent resistance,” you point out to me understandably. “Wouldn’t non-violent resistance be preferable to violent resistance?”

Well, I have some more news for you. Gandhi’s peaceful pressure tactics worked because the British Empire thrived on legitimacy from the English public. Even then, Gandhi’s success was mostly because of “good cop, bad cop” tactics to begin with. Not sure what I mean? Allow me to explain.

Mahatma Gandhi wasn’t the only man of his time who fought for the freedom of India. He had a contemporary who believed in using paramilitarism as a form of rebellion against the state. That contemporary’s name was Subhash Chandra Bose, and he founded the Indian National Army specifically for the purpose of running an insurgency against His Majesty’s Armed Forces during World War II.

In other words, Gandhi’s peaceful resistance worked because the Crown of Great Britain found that managing diplomacy was preferable to managing a war. They still operated on a basic set of rules where bad publicity was harmful to their ability to operate. The problem with the MAGA movement is that they don’t care about bad publicity. They don’t care about rules. If they did, they wouldn’t defend Jeffrey Epstein’s actions against innocent little girls, so liberals and progressives need to be more serious when it comes to resisting despotic tendencies.

“If waging war as an act of rebellion is the only way left to protect American civil liberties,” you begin asking with an understandable amount of concern. “Then how do we put this approach into practice without sacrificing our own ethics and morality in the process?”

There are ethical ways to wage war against dictators without compromising your own humanity when you fight. Guerrilla fighters can revolt without becoming the monster that they seek to destroy. If you have made it this far into the article, I can give an elaborate explanation for how this is actually possible.

What the Center-Left would need to do in the event that the Far-Right would need to be defeated in a war is come up with insurgency tactics against them that are compatible with the Geneva and Hague Conventions regarding warfare. In practice, this means operating on rules of engagement that don’t involve committing actions or using weapons that are banned under International Humanitarian Law.

The most obvious rule to follow, of course, would be to avoid targeting non-combatants, but what other rules need to be followed besides this one basic rule? Well, there are also three principles that need to be observed. Those principles are distinction, proportionality, and military necessity.

• Distinction: Guerrilla fighters need to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants during operations.

• Proportionality: This means that the amount of force used against an enemy must fit the goal that needs to be accomplished. For example, using a single exploding drone to destroy a fuel depot that provides fuel to combat vehicles is an acceptable use of force against an enemy, but bombarding an entire city with artillery rockets just to take out one rival general would not be.

• Military Necessity: There has to be an explicit military role that the intended target serves. All non-combatants are off-limits no matter what. For example, destroying a factory that manufactures spare parts for airplanes and helicopters would count as military necessity, but destroying a restaurant that serves food and drinks would be a violation of this very principle by definition.

In addition to these rules outlined in the Geneva Conventions, there are also rules described in the Hague Conventions on how prisoners of war are supposed to be treated. The rules are that detainees must be held in prisons humanely and that they are not to be mistreated in any way. That means rebels who form the backbone of our militia are not supposed to kill them, torture them, intimidate them, or humiliate them in any way. In addition, citizen soldiers are meant to provide the detainees with basic necessities that preserve life and dignity.

I must remind you all that this entire article is just a contingency plan for when authoritarians want elimination rather than compliance from their opposition, not an active plot to overthrow a sitting government.

That said, it would be stupid on our part to decide not to have a contingency plan for when things go wrong at all. If we don’t have a contingency plan for when the worst-case scenario befalls us, it’ll be our costliest mistake.

But if we do have a militia network as a contingency plan for when non-violent activism is rendered impossible by the authoritarians who hate us, we may still have a fighting chance to survive under the worst circumstances imaginable.

We can resist injustice without becoming cruel and inhumane. It’s about time that we all realized that it’s possible and even necessary to have courage while still being good people.

I hope that my intended message was easy to understand. Only by combining courage with kindness can we have real accountability in the world.