In this paper, I reply to Ward Churchill’s contention that, in struggles against tyrannical regimes and oppressive political systems, nonviolent resistance is ineffectual without either corresponding violence or the threat of violence. My response attempts to show why nonviolent resistance is an effective method in its own right, and can be superior to violent alternatives in terms of accomplishing both short and long term objectives. Finally, I address a peculiar aspect of Mr. Churchill’s position that, while insulating it from falsifiability, simultaneously limits both its credibility and usefulness. In “Pacifism as Pathology: Notes on an American Psuedopraxis, ” Ward Churchill condemns nonviolent resistance as ineffectual unless accompanied by either violent resistance or the threat of such violence. In his words, “The essential contradiction inherent to pacifist praxis is that, for survival itself, any nonviolent confrontation of state power must ultimately depend either on the state refraining from unleashing some real measure of its potential violence, or the active presence of some counterbalancing violence of precisely