Trump is a pestilence, an abomination. Really. He is. No more debate. It is as evident as a cloud of locusts. It is as undeniable as his pronouncements, appointments, and Project 2025. What name should we give all that? Call it anything you like. But by any other name fascism is still fascist.

Whether from day one in an avalanche of proclamations that seek to bury all opposition in a shock and awe flash, or, less apocalyptically and more strategically, over many months in a careful slow boil that burns a bit at a time until we are all cooked, Trump and his minions mean to impose horror on all but themselves. They are preparing a carpet bombing of vile policies that range from massive anti-human deportations to incendiary anti-economic tariffs, and from suicidal drill baby drill for oil billionaires to unlimited repressive incarceration to stifle effective disobedience. That is already a whole lot, but don’t overlook the long term. Trump and his minions also mean to transform government agencies and political institutions to ensure persistent one-thug rule. Goodbye guardrails. Hello holocaust.

So, be against Trump? Of course. But how? Once mobilized, I don’t think it is rocket science. Mass movements that raise costs for elites are what can win change. Organize to generate ever-widening solidarity and understanding. Provide sanctuary to protect allies and block incarcerations. Educate to awaken ever-broader circles of resistance. Rally, boycott, occupy, and strike to block and to simultaneously develop capacity to resist further. Volunteer for or join movement organizations. Each person decide to join the collective fight, or not—and then find entry and welcome. That is the hard part, not once aligned, once prepared, what to do. That will have many answers, yes, to be sure, but only one of the plausible answers will be widely daunting and confusing.

And to address that, have you recently heard the phrase “by any means necessary.” I have. Indeed, I believe in it. But I also think many people hear that phrase only partially. Inadequately. The recent killing of an insurance industry CEO has spurred attention to the sentiment. But that attention is now, as it has often been in the past, a sometimes too narrow attention. 

The “‘by any means” aspect of the featured phrase attracts thought. It gets attention. And what does the word “‘any” mean? It means violent. So the phrase tends to say to people, “it is time to get violent.” The phrase is heard to say, “if the target is sufficiently vile, the remedy can and even must be violence, including even murder. “Gear up or shut up” say some of the phrase’s advocates. 

Indeed, when I was a youngster that was how the phrase “by any means necessary” reverberated through the minds of many outraged young mates of mine, and me too. When suffering is bad enough, violence is justified. So let’s get on with the “any.”

But hold on just a second. What about the word “necessary”? In the passion of the times, to notice that word, necessary, proves hard for some people. They mull the option to hurt human targets or not to hurt human targets. They hear “by any means necessary” and for them that is the question, hurt humans or not hurt humans? They spend virtually no time asking “what qualifies as necessary”? 

Well, once you do attend to the “‘necessary” aspect of the tactical entreaty “by any means necessary,” one thing is undeniable. Acts that would fail to reduce the immense suffering at play, much less acts that what would instead reduce the prospects of reducing that suffering, certainly aren’t necessary.

Let me put that a little more specifically. Trump is indeed an abomination. When the predictable consequences of his preferred policies, much less of his intention to ensure a persistently fascistic future, fully enter one’s mind, when the devastating consequences fully form in our mind’s understanding and then contour our feelings, the consequences rightfully tell us violence is in no way ruled out. Like an insurance company working overtime to figure countless ways to reject claims recently provoked more than enough fear, pain, and outrage to surface the possibility of taking violent steps, so too will Trump’s agenda surface that possibility.

Truth be told, for some of us, myself included, the way our minds perceive reality, the disgusting consequences of social and economic injustice have long since and persistently surfaced the possibility of getting violent in response. Okay, but then a question needs to arise. Does shooting a CEO stop or even contribute to stopping pharmaceutical violence against the public? Thinking about “any,” some begin to say “Give me a gun, or some dynamite.” But what happened to the word “necessary”? Gearing up, focussed on the word “‘any,” some forget to consider the word “necessary.”

You may stay up at night wakefully dreaming up acts of violence. Or you may endlessly contemplate and debate some philosophical or historical analogies and hypotheticals, trying to resolve some absolute warrant for or against punching, shooting, or exploding. Your focus may become how extreme is the injustice but not how effective is the proposed response to it. Your focus may be the “any” and not the “‘necessary.”

On that path, not much helpful happens. A couple or three bathrooms may get blown to bits. Maybe someone gets shot. Meanwhile, a subset of capable, caring, courageous people divert themselves from what can win change to what can’t win change and what will even make winning change harder. They divert themselves from the need to organize to generate ever widening solidarity and understanding. They divert themselves from the need to provide sanctuary to protect and block. From the need to educate to awaken ever broader circles of resistance. From need to rally, boycott, occupy, and strike to block and to develop capacity to resist further. From the need to decide to join the collective fight and to then find entry and welcome. They divert themselves from all that to instead engage in useless and pointless contemplation of choices that would not only be unnecessary but would even counter productive. 

Yes, I know, this essay speaks mostly to a small circle of folks. But when I was young, in school, round about 1968, I mulled joining Weatherman’s advocators of violence. Luckily for me a guy named Noam advised me otherwise. He said they will blow up something here or there. Some folks will likely die. But they will contribute nothing useful to the people of Vietnam, nothing useful to the cause of justice here in the U.S. Instead they will make the real work of serious resistance more difficult. I listened.

So, for those who may be thinking about guns and bombs, I guess I am just trying to “pay it forward,” from Noam, via me, to you. 

ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate

Email