Fire With Fire
How To Fight Back Without Looking Like An Ape
When someone says we should fight fire with fire, it always seems to get misconstrued as a call to mimic the failed tactics of our opponents so we can lose like they have. The pundits and provocateurs who rose to fame with nothing more than their ability to appeal to the lowest forms of human nature will lose in due time, just as their enemies did, by driving away the ordinary folk with real jobs and real lives. They've done nothing more than create an eternal game of ping pong, where the ball gets passed back and forth forever without producing a winner or any real change.
Time is a flat circle. If one side of the political spectrum has the advantage today, you can bet the other team will have the advantage tomorrow. That's how political discourse has driven history for as long as I've been alive. The religious nuts from the 1990s—who tried to shut down rock concerts and ban video games—raised a generation that would grow up to do the same, but on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The anti-Christian, pro-censorship, safe space culture we're living in now can be directly attributed to the right-wing, religious, socially conservative censorship and outrage culture of the 1990s. I know, because I watched it happen.
As a teen, I watched bureaucrats encourage activists to boycott, disrupt and shut down Marilyn Manson concerts. They did it shamelessly, with hamfists, and without any regard for free speech and expression. The religious conservatives from the 80s and 90s gave us our current culture by encouraging their children to be overly sensitive, meandering wastes of skin. The only thing they didn't expect was that their children would grow up to be rebellious, anti-Christian liberals. In the 80s and 90s nobody wanted to be like their parents and most of us did the opposite of what we were told. Unfortunately, intolerance and bigotry were the only things my generation inherited. We saw how our predecessors successfully shut down debate. We lived and we learned. Some of us saw the stupidity and never wanted to reenact it, but others took it to the bank.
In the 1990s, the right-wing conservatives needed safe spaces from the Anti-Christ Superstar. Today, their stupid children need safe spaces from Christians and conservatives. Do you see what happened?
On a much shorter time scale, we saw the SJWs and the hyper-liberals lose badly. Donald Trump and his army of deplorables turned the tables. The anti-Trumpers lost because their tactics grew tiresome and obnoxious. At every turn they found an opportunity to feign outrage, demand censorship and disrupt an event. However, the tables will turn back again shortly. Why? Because the pro-Trumpers are feigning outrage, demanding censorship and disrupting events.
This doesn't need to happen. Politics doesn't need to be a flat circle. We don't need to lose by letting the barbarians and animals on our side take the lead. There are ways to win without alienating ordinary people who have real jobs and real problems.
Return The Blows
No one should ever stand down. One of Donald Trump's best methods is forceful, unapologetic retaliation. When someone hits you, you hit them back ten times harder. When someone plays nice, you play nice. That's a brilliant and effective strategy that can be executed intelligently, without coming across as brutish and barbaric. In the best cases, it can be executed quietly and without much public awareness. It would be dishonest to say that Trump has always succeeded at this. His latest tweet about a television host's plastic surgery and bleeding face was an unsophisticated, sloppy attack. Like in any conflict, whether we like it or not, public opinion matters.
We're at war. Our opponents are always plotting their next attack. To discourage attacks, your enemies must know you'll never stand down and that their attacks should be fatal—because if they aren't, your response will be. This method of war scares people, because if both sides share the same philosophy, the only way to win is to escalate until one side ends up entirely obliterated, ceases fire, or is beaten into submission and incapacitated. This method of war creates the most destruction, but it's necessary.
When Kathy Griffin decapitated Donald Trump, the response was wide in scope and relentless. Although she tried to blame Trump and his supporters, there was nothing that could substantially attribute her victimhood solely to Trump supporters or the political right. A giant swarm of covert snipers took out Kathy Griffin strategically and effectively. The same thing happened to CNN's Reza Aslan, who took to Twitter to call Trump a “piece of shit” following the terror attacks at London Bridge. Both shitbags were fired by an overtly left-wing news network. Both of their careers were sent to the wrecking yard and they deserved it. Why? Because the same would have happened to anyone who behaved similarly toward Barack Obama.
There are no exceptions in war.
Countless numbers of ordinary people have had their careers demolished for expressing conservative or pro-Trump views. Payback is a bitch.
Rules For Right-Wing Radicals
Critics like to jump to Saul Alinsky when they see riots, disruptions and agitators attacking people. Alinsky talked about agitating people and “rubbing resentments raw” inside communities, but he never advocated for violence. His tactics are often taken out of context and misrepresented, while a lot of his less contentious tactics and strategies are ignored.
Straight up, I'll say it. Saul Alinsky was a genius. A lot of his tactics can be used to great effect when applied with an ethical purpose. Most of his tactics have been used to create horrible outcomes, but that's never what Alinsky himself necessarily called for. Even if he did, shouldn't we take pleasure in using his own tactics and teachings against his own kind?
Rules For Radicals can be applied and utilized to protect free speech and advance freedom. With some minor adjustments, Alinsky's tactics can be used in political war by both sides. His rules applied to low-income, working class people. In his book, he laid out strategies that targeted society's downtrodden with the intent of organizing them into cohesive, effective groups. His intent was to give power to the powerless—something conservatives have tried to do for a long time, despite what their critics say.
Rather than nitpick and criticize his tactics, the political right should take Alinsky's tactics and modify them to be virtuous, ethical and more effective. Most of his book advocates for peaceful protest, but some of it could use some ethical and moral tuning. The thugs on the political left have used Alinsky tactics to bring about negative change and a stronger welfare state, but nobody has really been stopping the right from using Alinsky tactics to build a freer country.
Give Saul Alinsky's book Rules For Radicals a read. You may be surprised at how coherent many of his teachings were:
An organizer must become sensitive to everything that is happening around him. He is always learning, and every incident teaches him something. He notices that when a bus has only a few empty seats, the crowd trying to get on will push and shove; if there are many empty seats the crowd will be courteous and considerate; and he muses that in a world of opportunities for all there would be a change in human behavior for the good. In his constant examination of life and of himself he finds himself becoming more and more of an organized personality.
The organizer must become schizoid, politically, in order not to slip into becoming a true believer. Before men can act an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil. He knows that there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree. — Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals
But Don't Act Like An Unhinged Lunatic
The take-downs of Kathy Griffin and Reza Alsan were methodical and calculated. CNN sponsors were contacted and shamed, while swarms of directed attacks were launched on social media. The left did this against Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly at Fox News—and less successfully against Sean Hannity. At no point did a raging lunatic jump on stage with any of these people, take their microphones or yell a bunch of whiny, asinine shit at their audiences.
Too often, we've seen protesters and Antifa thugs hijack stages and disrupt events like a bunch of savage chimpanzees. Nobody sees these things happen and says, “Oh, splendid. Those fine young people made such a jolly good point.” These kinds of disruptions and violent acts annoy and piss off the average joe. The average joe responds better to peaceful counter-protests and to informative propaganda campaigns.
If people are truly horrified by an actor who looks like Donald Trump being stabbed 23 times, they won't go see it happen. If they do, jumping on stage like an imbecile and using your shrill voice to act like an SJW won't change their minds. It'll piss them off and make them think you're an unhinged SJW who actually believes that speech is a form of violence. It'll make them feel about you how they feel about every other sack of worthless shit who has ever disrupted an event.
You're not original, edgy or creative when you jump on a stage like an unkempt hippy and start yelling crazy nonsense. You haven't done anything unique or worthy of applause. Minus your droves of lonely sycophants on Twitter, no one else thinks you're a genius. Going on Twitter to act like a victim after police haul you off—because they think you're unhinged and dangerous—doesn't make you anything but a low-life who will fade into the black abyss of history without a trace.
Remember when Joy Villa wore a Make America Great Again dress to the Grammy's? Be more like Joy Villa.
Don't Talk About Free Speech
Don't talk about free speech if you don't actually know what constitutes free speech. Sometimes idiots will get dragged off a Shakespeare stage and whine about having their rights violated. These people are parasites and their behaviour is antithetical to our causes, despite their sentiments being echoed by droves of clapping seals with Twitter accounts. Twitter has never been a place for reasoned debate and discourse—just a cesspool of ideological rage and mindless rewteeting.
This is the kind of thing the left does. They pretend their freedom of speech is under attack after they've tried to attack someone else's free assembly. Jumping on a stage when you're not invited isn't free speech. Calling speech a form of violence is ludicrous and it attracts primitive animals, not rational thinkers. Jumping on a stage to steal the platform from a person who is scheduled to speak is not free speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect your right to speak on a stage where you have not been invited to speak. In fact, the First Amendment protects the people on the stage from you.
Free speech is the most important thing to fight for. You can't fight for it effectively if you misrepresent it or don't know what it means. Free speech doesn't extend into private domains or onto public stages with organized speakers. You can be fired from your job for saying certain things, your spouse can dump you, you can be arrested for storming a stage, and you can be banned from social media. None of these things violate your freedom of speech except in a subjective sense. Objectively, free speech means you can't be thrown in prison for having an opinion, not that you're immune to all consequences.
If you want to be brave, give people a taste of your unpopular political beliefs when you've been given the stage—like at a wedding reception, award show, or special event. Or, you could always organize your own counter-protest or smear campaign. Get a permit to host Caesar in a public park, but cast a black guy in the title role.
Be Smart, Factual, Consistent And Calculated—But Dangerous
You can still be an epic jerk while being factual and informed. I'm not talking about cucking yourself and acting like a neutered poodle. You can be ruthless, unapologetic and absolutely vicious without being stupid. We can get further ahead by not damaging the public's perception of our movements with inconsistency, hypocrisy and childish antics.
We all get carried away sometimes, especially in the heat of anger. Our enemies can get under our skin and make us react. A part of our job is not letting them be successful at making us react like unsophisticated apes. They're good at getting under our skin and triggering us in the same way they're triggered by incorrect gender pronouns. Fighting fire with fire means being smart and evolving.
We can get under their skin, we can beat them quietly and loudly when we have to, and we can win by giving this flat circle some dimensions. If we act unsophisticated and hamfisted, the average people who make economies run, presidents worry and elections flip will abandon our causes. Without them backing us and warming up to our message, we're a lost cause. We need the ordinary, unaffiliated working people who don't have time to think about what right and left mean, or what it means to be a liberal or a conservative.
Fighting fire with fire means improving the methods, not recycling the same tactics that drove ordinary people away from the left.
If you're interested in learning some tactics and strategies to fight your political opponents, or sharing your own, click here. Join the war.