A question of tactics

In any battle, you must have weapons and tactics that work against the enemy of the moment. If you use Marquis of Queensbury rules, and he brings three buddies with barbwire-wrapped baseball bats, you will lose. I.e., you don’t take a gun to a law-suit, and you don’t face a mob alone. The English longbow was effective against the mounted French knight because they were fighting by similar rules, against similarly-minded men, on a fair battleground. The longbow did not have any effect against Martin Luther’s 95 theses nailed to the Church door (a mixed metaphor, I realize; just go with it). No matter how distasteful it may be, you must choose the weapons that can hit your opponent’s “center of gravity,” where they have power.

We are in a war of ideas in this nation.

On one side, we have the globalists: people are interchangeable, borders are bad, what’s good for large donors is deemed good for everyone, laws are for the little people, America is a no better than any other nation, and wealth must be “spread around” rather than created and earned.

On the other side are the Americans: people who realize that people are not interchangeable, wealth must come from work and saving, the national elites must put the interests of the American people first if we are not to be drowned beneath a tidal wave of low-skill and entitled “cargo-cult” mentality, and diversity + proximity = war.

So even though the Alt-Right doesn’t *like* Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, we’d be foolish to ignore them because of how ruthlessly and effectively they have been used against the ideals of the American right and her people for the last ~50 years. So the question is, where exactly are the best points to attack?

Example: tolerance and being offended. The special snowflakes get offended at every little thing. Anything a white man says can be twisted to be deemed “racist” or “sexist” at any opportunity, because we’ve been conditioned to run away and apologize when there is even the faintest whiff of accusation of sexism or racism. If you say “men and women are the same,” clearly you are sexist because you are denying a woman’s ability to bear children is significant. If you say they are different because women can bear children you are sexist because you are reducing a woman to a uterus. If you say they are different because men are on average stronger/faster then you are sexist because equality! So men are controlled by the left through bullying and intimidation with the constant threat of accusation. There need be no actual evidence, or intent, or even coherence; the implied threat of being offended is enough. The men self-censor to keep their jobs.

So the question comes about: what wedges can be used to strike back on that battle-field? I think I know some on speech code things – learn to be offended even if you have a thick skin. Ask how “targeting programs at minorities and women” is any different than “discriminating against whites and men?”

But what else can be done? What other sacred cows of the statist Left can be easily wedge-issued by properly motivated and informed people who find themselves in the right place at the right time, and what’s the best way to exploit it? HR? Codes of conduct? Bumper-stickers in the parking lot? I’m looking for any sort vector where their own actions and ideals can be leveraged against them, sort of like a good ju-jitsu master. What sort of tactics you think of to get the left to shoot at its own as often as the right does?

 

14 thoughts on “A question of tactics

    • I have. But that is mostly about defense. I’m thinking about how to go on offense.
      But maybe it’s time to re-read it, see if it inspires any ideas.

      • Below is *only one* approach for this very specific classroom style setting. When engaging the opponent, I think of it as a campaign, not just a one-hour wonder. With a campaign, you get more bang for your buck, energy, time + reach a larger audience.

        When I speak of campaigning, I’m not talking about political campaigning. Today, I’m referencing the art of repeating a well-crafted message over + over.

        There are hundreds of ways to address the situation Rolf presents. The below approach is my culmination of studying advertising/design/marketing/public relations/communications (all of which is really the art of psychology):

        – Make your purpose be to “influence” or “educate” your opponent. Fighting has never brought people together.

        – In a liberal-dominated classroom setting, old school postering/flyering works well, since that’s the real-life “hotspot” — the starting point of “conversation”. Can always include #Message on your fliers, to take in-class message online for worldwide discussion.

        – Before printing your fliers + postering in classroom, FIRST, condense your message to one sentence or less. Six words are better. Two words = even more powerful. The shorter, the better. (The best billboard ads are 6 words or fewer. That’s the average time you have to capture driver’s attention, as they drive by at 60mph.)

        – Sculpt your message to appeal to the reader (liberal snowflakes). Don’t waste time on repeating a message which appeals to “your side”. Think about your reader, and how their mind appeals to emotion. Don’t get angry about this. Get aware about this.

        – Use simple words (average US college freshman reads somewhere around 7th grade level). Don’t get angry about this, either. Get aware about this, too.

        – Don’t think of them as your enemy. As I often say when patiently talking with lefties, “We share the same end goal, ___insert topic ____, our difference is in *how we get there.* [Topic can vary from helping more people gaining access to healthcare] or [reducing the number of inner city shootings, etc]…

        – BACK to the poster; Add in one visual image (let the photo speak a thousand words).

        – Below your main message (which is one sentence or shorter), in *smaller print*, add a few sentences explaining a bit more. Include 1 fact, with 1 source.

        – Don’t discuss your message online with others for their input. This isn’t groupthink. It’s strategy. If you feel the need for others’ insight, seek those who really grasp strategy. Discuss amongst yourselves. Not online.

        – Print 50-100 or so fliers at Kinko’s on 8.5×11 paper (the cheapest). Use dark lettering on light background, for that creates visual contrast = attracts eyeballs. Suggestion: Use WHITE or yellow paper +with BLACK LETTERING. b+w printing keeps cost down. And it’s easier to read, visually.

        – In a college or setting classroom, have 10+ friends arrive early to plaster the walls, seats, chalkboard, whiteboard, with your 8.5×11 fliers. Use non-damaging adhesive to ensure non “destruction of property”. Don’t wan leave behind tape marks. Setting one single sheet on each student’s desk is just as effective. (Makes it look like teacher did a handout of these, before students arrived.) Also, leave a stack of fliers on teacher’s desk or podium to possibly create illusion the teacher was the one who handed out fliers, or hung them on walls.

        – More distributors = fast + easy. Since you are the student in upcoming class, don’t be there ahead of time to the classroom canvassing.

        – Show up to class 1-2 mins late. No worries. There will be such a commotion in the room, class is going to start late, if at all.

        ——-

        – Before engaging in the plan, always be prepared:

        1- Be prepared for when the teacher/principal/dean/union makes a fuss over the matter, esp. if they tag it on you. When I say “be prepared” I mean, make prelim contact w pro-1st Amend attorney or at least have list f #s o hand, just in case the opponent gets “legal” on you.

        2 – Be prepared for any fallout ahead of time. Any fallout can be used to your benefit. Make it a good thing. Have a statement or news release supporting your cause drafted ahead of time (knowing you may never use it). Better to be on the offense than on the defense. This is where pro-liberty-folk have typically messed up: being thrown into defense.
        ___

        – Back to the classroom, own the conversation. You could be the leader of opposing discussion, without being the “obvious” creator of the campaign. Keep your cool. Friendliness + humor helps. Minds can be molded. Though you have stats, don’t forget to use real-life examples: stories about someone you know personally OR your own examples from your an life.

        – Real-life examples can include things like: I know a friend who was shot in the inner city… my mother was a single mom + never went on welfare, though our family qualified for welfare… I know what it’s like to not have health insurance…

        – My favorite (and yes, this applies to me, yours truly): Look, I’m a recovering Democrat. I once voted for Bill Clinton when I was young, unaware, misinformed. But I learned there are better, more successful ways of getting things done to achieve ____ [end goal]___ without hurting others in the process.

        – Regardless, classroom should be in an uproar of sorts. People’s minds are shifting. Everyone’s out of their comfort zone. Embrace the opportunity to gently present idea of scheduling a formal debate with other students — or, even better — debate the teacher.

        – Propose this debate in a kind, friendly, solutionary manner. Offer choice of three debate times. Ask if teacher could share what works best for them. (This is agreement, not force.) Invite teachers, union, principal, dean, etc. to be part of audience, sitting among students.

        – Offer to bring donuts to the debate (include gluten-free donuts). Make it a fun event.

        – Likely, the opponent won’t cave to a healthy debate. Don’t let that get you down. Keep the spirit going.

        – Get MSM involved whenever possible. You have a great story to share. Lots of boring stories out there. They need good fodder. Tip off media ahead of time — but not too soon, depending on what tactics, exactly, you’re employing. At school setting in particular, tipoff college newspaper or high school paper — very likely they’ll cover the story.

        – And it goes unspoken, tap into social media + citizen journalists. There’s where your insta-coverage is.

  1. we say what we think and believe, no matter who is “offended.”
    we take crap from no one.
    and, we tell the tiny penis crowd to go fuck themselves.

    distasteful. discourteous. foul. obnoxious.

    necessary.

    • I simply answer ”We’ve got facts, you’ve got dick jokes.”. Nothing rams home (heh) the idea that the self-described intellectuals are using peurile insults better than stating it so baldly. If do right, no can defend.

  2. p.s.

    whenever i got threatened or insulted at my blog, i always responded threatened and insulted in like manner. with just a little extra thrown in, to be cordial about the whole matter.

    and, i published my real name, my address in milton freewater, oregon w/ directions on how to get there. and, i always promised to leave the porch light on. and, i told them to come loaded for bear if that was their purpose, as bear was what they were gonna get.

    take no crap.

  3. With respect, the alt-right does NOT dislike the Rules for Radicals.

    On the contrary, many of the alt-right are perfectly willing to hammer the leftists with their own tools. This, of course, gives the establishment morons the vapors (they’re the ones who’ve been playing with Queensbury rules for the last twenty years).

    • Perhaps a clarification is in order. Take your average student, bored and hating sitting through another BS part of class. His teacher is a hard-core leftie, as are 90% of the rest of the faculty. 80% of his class-mates are center/right. They are tired of the BS. What can they do, concretely, that isn’t totally making stuff up or making false accusations, that is legit and makes enforcing the freedom-stifling PC rules effectively unenforceable?

      • My daughter experienced this in her freshman year at U.Texas-Austin. Forced along with all her fellow engineering freshmen to take a humanities, about 150 of them signed up for the same 300 seat lecture course in American Film History.

        Presented with a SJW prof who spent the first week decrying racism in the US (using Birth of a Nation, of course) the engineers rebelled. They started asking how the US compared to other countries of that era, how the US had handled post-Civil War Reconstruction (i.e., why were and are Dems so racist?), how the US had implemented voting rights and other civil rights for all citizens in the past 100 years. The SJW could not handle it.

        The rest of the class term was devoid of lectures, and involved only watching films and filling out printed review sheets.

        That is one way to fight the idiocy.

        • Yeah, I get that. But in the typical school environment, if you are the only non-liberal teacher trying to explain both sides of an issue and anyone complains, guess where the axe falls? Yeah, not on the special snowflakes. So, how do the students who actually want to hear of views outside of liberal dogma get the liberal teachers to be more balanced, or not push the prog agenda, or even admit there might possibly be a valid other view (you’d think they’d know there could be, given the amount of hype diversity gets) when the teacher will get the backing of the principal and union, rather than be facing them?

  4. “…men are controlled by the left through bullying and intimidation with the constant threat of accusation.

    And thus we are not men at all.

    “Take no crap”

    I agree totally, but that can be interpreted in different ways. Responding in kind often reinforces the bad behavior, whereas responding with both courage and grace can disarm the rabid opponent, such that his rage serves only to burn him out.

    Stand firm.

    Don’t become the enemy.

    Good will defeat evil.

    Don’t ever react emotionally. It may be satisfying to the ego, but it serves no other purpose.

    We have one great example of victory over tyranny, in the American revolution. Study it, read their words, understand it. Understand them and their thinking, their motivations, their concerns and their source of hope and courage. It’s just about the only real example we have, and so it should be given great weight. To pledge your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor to a singular cause, and put your name to it, and mean it, and then suffer and die for it, is quite a bit apart from anything we’ve been saying or doing for a long time.

    This will be hard to take, and I’ve said it already; you will not be able to use your intelligence to “figure it out” ahead of time, such that you’ll have a concrete plan to execute. There is always an X factor, and I believe the words “adapt and overcome” are probably very good advice.

    Teach history. I’ve found that the one thing that will always get someone’s attention, getting them to consider the possibility that another way of thinking may be in order, is to show them how something they’ve believed for a long time is actually not so, by way of historical example. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for example was a Republican and an NRA member. Democracy was considered suspicious and dangerous to the founders.

    Democracy doesn’t get to decide whether or not you have rights.

    In any case it is the calm-spoken word which will get the attention of the angry, unhappy Progressive. They’re already prepared for you to be mean and yell at them and call them names, and they’ve been inoculated against it. That’s what they do.

    An American doesn’t behave like that. An American tells it like it is, with conviction, doesn’t get emotional (emotion is the lever that separates us from reason) and doesn’t tolerate evil.

    Don’t press it when they’re clearly not interested in a two way conversation. Come back another time, when you’re not emotional (like a hysterical little girl with a penis).

    The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It may be an interesting lesson to explain how “property” got replaced with “happiness”. People like learning new things, especially when they know that the other people in their circles don’t know those things.

    Be patient.

    You don’t teach a child how to ride a bicycle by yelling and screaming at him and calling him insulting names. You teach him through a calm interest in his well being, generally without a “plan of attack” or any self interest beyond the interest in seeing him succeed.

    If you notice yourself getting emotional, you’re failing. Stop. Stop right in mid-sentence if you must. Apologize for getting emotional (seriously – you fucked up, and an honest man can admit when he fucks up). Come back at it some other time, when your brain is actually working.

    And so it is that, again and again, it’s not all about what “we do to them” but a lot of it is about us.

    No spoiled child respects his parents. Parents get respect by patiently and firmly correcting bad behavior. Love, among other things, means correcting the bad behavior of others. I’d your friends say nothing of your obvious bad behavior, they’re not friends. Talk with them about this and put a stop to the mutual reinforcement of bad behavior. Don’t thieves and robbers “love” thieves and robbers? But what profit is there in that?

    This cannot be over emphasized in this age of unjustified tolerance. Tolerance of evil is no virtue. Same goes for you and your wife. If you’re an appeaser, she hates you. She may act all nicey-nice and dumb shit like that, but inside she recoils at your disgusting, predictable, appeasing weakness. She hates the whole damned thing. She longs for real love, which is a strength and a virtue that spreads to others like laughter, and instead she more often gets what amounts to a needy woman with a penis, where instead her husband should be. As go the relationships within the family, so goes the nation. Thus we are, quite literally, fucked, any way you look at it.

    We’re living a whole world that’s like that island in Lord of the flies when only the children were there.

    In summery (or is that summary? How about a summery summary?);
    Be patient and tolerate no evil. The bully hates you for your failure to set him straight (same as your wife and kids). He gets more and more frustrated and angry at your failure, and at some point he’ll kill you or kill himself, or both, because he’s been unable to find any sanity (love) in the world.

    And I don’t care that you think I’m completely out of my fucking mind. You’ll have to correct anything I said that was in error, which won’t be much once you think it over.

  5. You should be listening to Sargon of Akkad on youtube. He addresses these issues often. Also, consider that GamerGate had the most success in fighting back against Regressives trying to force the video games industry to capitulate with their BS. I think some of the biggest tactics we know is never apologize to SJWs. Always meet them with ridicule & mockery. They’re no different than anti-gunners. We’re not going to change their minds, but we got to change the minds of other folks. Trump would not have so much support if people weren’t sick & tired of the language police shitting in their breakfasts. He’s a doofus, but he speaks his mind and damn the SJWs & we actually RESPECT that rather than what he says.

  6. My estimation is that the Trump campaign is using Alinsky’s tactics against the Democrats. For instance, his “Crooked Hillary ” meme is classic Alinsky. I don’t know of any connection to WikiLeaks but Trump has used them adroitly. He’s used the any publicity is good publicity idea to play the media as one blogger termed it, “like a golden fiddle he got from a man wearing a red suit in Georgia”. Democrat manuvers that easily torpedoed other Republican candidates have been deflected; often back onto the attacker. Trump knows the game and plays it better than Hillary.
    In some regards, I believe that we are becoming a post Socialist country. We are seeing the end of the idea that educated elites can govern the country. Bloat and corruption have crippled the federal government. Trump will be useful to break the cycle of corruption. It is up to us to redefine the role of government to a manageable size.

    • I was thinking also of Trump as an example of how to get this right. A case in point is his argument to black voters that the Democratic politicians have never helped them and never will, because they think that inner city misery will continue to help them.

Comments are closed.