I think everything you say is sane. We disagree on violence and even that is a point on which people can sensibly disagree. Given the chance, should someone have killed Hitler.

Yes is a very sane response.

But Sanerism is a movement seeking to be effective. So, although I personally would be pleased if a bunch of oil refineries were destroyed by armed drones, that would be a very bad move for our movement. And yes, I personally would have favored bombing the train tracks leading to Auschwitz.

Analysis of movements throughout history and up to today show that nonviolent movements are TWICE as likely to achieve part or all of their objectives than violent ones.

I intend to win. Movements require large numbers to win and nonviolent movements on average have a much greater ability to grow than violent ones.

I attribute much of the bad behavior if humans to the societies into which they (we) were born. One human tendency is to follow. Obedience to authority is the deadly path we are currently on.

That’s why early Saners activities—as mild as they appear—are so important. They demonstrate and give people permission to obey their consciences, rather than the authorities.

You are very, very sane. I am, too. And one of the most insightful people I read on Medium.

But I’m on a quest to understand what works and make good things happen.