 I think history contradicts that. I mean, blatantly and overtly, I think history contradicts that. Let's look at the United States for a second. Let's begin our nonviolent history, say, you know, in the 1700s, prior to the first shots being fired at Concord and Lexington in the Revolutionary War, there was 10 years of nonviolent resistance, which included the Boston Tea Party, refusal to pay British taxes, tariffs, refusal to go to British courts and so that people tried to set up alternative means of dispute resolution, attempt by colonists to establish alternative economies so they weren't dependent on the British. There was 10 years of nonviolent organizing against the Stamp Act, the Townsend Act, the coercive acts that led the way, of course, were never taught at school for a great deal of independence from the British. If you want to look at recent American history, look at women's right to vote. The labor movement in this country, the civil rights movement, some of the accomplishments and growth that we've done as a nation have come from nonviolent movements that have fought against a status quo that was willing to use all the power that it had to try to oppose those people and the status quo still had to change. So when someone says, well, nonviolent action just reinforces a status quo, I think the burden of proof is on them to say that because the history to me is very clear. Certainly can and in a sense, I mean, you can get new leaders at the end of an armed insurrection. Oftentimes what you don't do is you don't change the concentration of power in society. So if the root of oppression is an imbalance of power where your power holders have this much and your general society is disorganized or doesn't know how to resist or isn't networked enough and has this much power, there's a discrepancy and this is what enables the oppression to happen. But if they succeed in changing the government, the resulting systems are so frequently authoritarian, so frequently don't respect the rights of the people. Sometimes the rights of the people that the armed insurgency claim to represent because a lot of times those people didn't get involved actively. They might have acquiesced to the armed insurgency. They might have even supported it, but they didn't get involved in mobilizing themselves in the way they do in civil resistance. Nonviolent action gets rid of a lot of that risk because in fact, through the course of conflict, people increase their power relative to the status quo holders and after a transition they're much more able to say, hey, we're going to have a say in how our new society is shaped and how our government serves us.