Excerpt from "Pacifism as Pathology" by Mike Ryan

I am currently in the process of reading a book called "Pacifism as Pathology" Which is a book more or less against pacifism and nonviolence because according to the authors, it fails to be effective. I thought it would be very interesting to read alongside other writings by people who are very much pro-nonviolence and anti-violence. I found the chapter by Mike Ryan very interesting. He has spent a good deal of time with nonviolent/pacifist resistence in Canada to no avail. Although I see where he is coming from on several points, I can't help but think that it is simply his disillusionment with pacifism as being ineffective that has made him write this. In the first part of the chapter, he states four points that are normally used to oppose violence and responds to them. I would address all of these but it would be an extremely long blog, so I will discuss his first point and rebuttal.
The first point is "There is the ever-popular assertion that the time is not right." He responds to this by explaining that as things get worse, when will the time be right to stop the madness of injustice in any given situation? When nonviolence doesn't work, when will "the time be right" to use violence to finally create justice in a situation where there is none left? He suggests that it is better to act than to not act.
To this, I must bring forth Gandhi's idea of nonviolence. Gandhi would have said that it is never the right time to be violent. It seems to me that Ryan is overlooking the fact that in resistence, one must be active, not passive. He fails to do an important thing throughout the chapter which is that he fails to distinguish between pacifism and nonviolence. Gandhi would have agreed that it is always the time to actively resist, but not with violence.
To back up his rebuttal, Ryan quotes an article regarding the dangers of nuclear war, beginning with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This quote was taken from an article by Dr. Rosalie Bertell, discussing the casualities from the after-effects of the bombings and explains that the future for the world and mankind looks bleak because of the already atrociously violent acts of war, starting with the bombings. Ryan responds to this quote by explaining that it is time to take action in any way possible, even violently resisting.
I am confused as to how the quote works to defend the use of violent resistance. The article is clearly against war and all forms of violence because of the destruction it has caused recently and historically. It doesn't seem right to respond to this in saying that the time is now to resist in any way possible to end the injustice in the world. It seems that this quote is asking that we reconsider our actions in the past and turn to a nonviolent new beginning. It is the only way to heal the atrocious past and move on to a more safe and secure future. I don't think that pacifism is the way to achieve this, however. I think it is important to be uncooperative and active in our resistence, should we choose to resist.
I think that the most important thing that Ryan is missing in his argument is that he fails to distinguish between pacifism and active resistance. There is a big difference between the two, and historically a big difference between the outcomes of each.