I'm more Machiavellian so violence does work you just got to use it tactfully and skillfully. Not burning down cities, looting everything that isn't a book store.
You have to use it as 'a grand gesture', one massive show of force that eliminates not just a lot of your enemies but also those that pay lip service to you (useful idiots) those actively plotting against you and those that move where the breeze blows. Eliminate them all at once and then allow peace because people know how ruthless you can be, they'll prefer to deal with you in ways that don't require force.
You can do this politically speaking too so no need to 'let the bodies hit the floor'.
Violence can work, in theory, but under highly specific circumstances. Most political violence that occurs is quite random and aimless, which is why it does not succeed. I also doubt that it can work in the heavily militarized and enormously powerful modern states. And even when it does work, it is rarely the party that engaged in the most violence that ends up prevailing - the SRs committed nearly all of the terrorism in Russia, but it was the Bolsheviks who were better able to channel their violence who took over.
Far better to remain peaceful and to put the onus on them to start violence, which will chip away at their legitimacy. They can justify the murder of an Ashley Babbitt, as they can falsely claim she was an imminent threat, but it will be very difficult to justify firing into peaceful crowds. Many will, but some will not.
I've previously said that in regards to the political Left, violence from the political Left, against the political center-Left absolutely works by basically culling the Left into a new position. The Left wants to be on the winning side, more than literally anything.
However, these options are not available to the political anti-Left because the anti-Left is a revolutionary force. In war you can't replicate your enemy's strategy because their strategy exists to guarantee their success. Replicating all the same tactics ends up with them winning because you're just fulfilling their objectives.
In this case, Uber did not employ violent protests against the state, or even taxis, in order to gain power. They employed violent protests against themselves at the expense of their own drivers, so that they could use this as a political weapon to wield in the media, as political pressure against the law enforcement, and the state, while also showing that the government was insecure.
It also helps that the WEF is bankrolling Uber, allowing them to have a kind of industry-specific color revolution take place where they go.
Over and over again, we've seen the political left, from their establishment position, use attacks from the political right, or even claims of potential attacks from the political right, as justification for further violent crackdowns, and a curtailing of legal barriers and rights. This can go from anything from Jan. 6, to the "MAGA bomber", to the FBI orchestrated Whitmer kidnapping scandal, to the "Viper Militia" claim, to the abortion clinic bombings from the 90's, and so on.
Over and over again, the objective of Information Warfare operations is to drive the political right into violence, so that it may be channelized into an easier position to destroy.
Uber represents an extremely effective tactic from a position of strength to manipulate the situation on the ground to their advantage by guaranteeing the victimization of themselves, and using that tactically.
Even after this latest FBI shooting, we are even seeing Viva Frei being personally targeted as the man who incited the attack. The purpose of these efforts is to break the ability for political dissent to communicate; to reduce their public effectiveness; and rationalize more violent crackdowns on dissenters.
Do NOT trust people who are calling for violence, particularly on the eve of a mid-term election that is nearly guaranteed to win the Republicans the House, and after an illegal FBI raid unified the political right around Donald Trump for a moment, and even got progressives like Tulsi Gabbard and Jimmy Dore objecting to it.
Part of the purpose of Black Pills is to help demoralize a target population, and then to use that sense of hopelessness to inspire them into violence. This is why Black Pills and advocations of violence are enemy strategy, not just retarded.
I've previously said that in regards to the political Left, violence from the political Left, against the political center-Left absolutely works by basically culling the Left into a new position. The Left wants to be on the winning side, more than literally anything.
However, these options are not available to the political anti-Left because the anti-Left is a revolutionary force. In war you can't replicate your enemy's strategy because their strategy exists to guarantee their success. Replicating all the same tactics ends up with them winning because you're just fulfilling their objectives.
Acting as if using any tactic which is also used by your enemy will result in defeat is retarded reasoning a level above "If you fight your enemy, they win." You are correct that if the anti-left resorted to burning, looting, and murdering, that they would just be accomplishing the goals of the left, but the fact that you can already largely distinguish "right wing violence" by the fact that it targets (which is the key word) establishment institutions instead of the general public indicates that you don't have to worry about the right going BLM.
Over and over again, we've seen the political left, from their establishment position, use attacks from the political right, or even claims of potential attacks from the political right, as justification for further violent crackdowns, and a curtailing of legal barriers and rights. [...]
[T]he objective of Information Warfare operations is to drive the political right into violence, so that it may be channelized into an easier position to destroy. [...]
Even after this latest FBI shooting, we are even seeing Viva Frei being personally targeted as the man who incited the attack. The purpose of these efforts is to break the ability for political dissent to communicate; to reduce their public effectiveness; and rationalize more violent crackdowns on dissenters.
The intelligence apparatus is more than capable of manufacturing justification for whatever actions the establishment wishes to take. Rational people aren't going to go lone wolf against an FBI building because they realize that isn't going to accomplish any of their political goals. I agree that we should probably be discouraging people from doing retarded shit like attacking fortified buildings with nail guns, but it's going to happen (once again, if for no other reason, because the intelligence apparatus will stage it.)
Do NOT trust people who are calling for violence, particularly on the eve of a mid-term election that is nearly guaranteed to win the Republicans the House, and after an illegal FBI raid unified the political right around Donald Trump for a moment, and even got progressives like Tulsi Gabbard and Jimmy Dore objecting to it.
The anti-left was handed a major PR victory here, though it's one which they will be unable to capitalize on for at least the next three months. We can only hope that this gives enough institutional support to stop the bleeding 'til then, and that they actually do capitalize if they win (and God help us if they don't.) But I digress
Part of the purpose of Black Pills is to help demoralize a target population, and then to use that sense of hopelessness to inspire them into violence. This is why Black Pills and advocations of violence are enemy strategy, not just retarded.
OK, but what should we be doing instead? I know it's way harder to present a viable alternative than to just say "that's bad, don't do that", but for those careening toward the abyss, just saying "don't do that" isn't just unhelpful, it's actively harmful. With that said, in order to avoid hypocrisy, I'll give a short summary of what we should be doing instead of downing the blackpill.
First, we should be reducing our dependence on the existing system and working to become more self sufficient. Find a means of supporting yourself and your family that is as resilient as possible to cancellation and economic destruction by the left and their policies. This will look different for everyone depending on their individual skillsets, and it will be harder than going with the flow, but there are a variety of options here.
Second, we should be preparing to effectively resist tyranny (Fuck off AoV this isn't going to be a call to violence, and even if it were, it's constitutionally protected speech and the hypothetical violence would also be constitutionally protected.) To paraphrase the Second Amendment, "A properly functioning militia is necessary to secure a free state." That means not just being armed, but being familiar with the function of those arms, being physically and mentally fit, and having a group of likeminded individuals prepared to use those arms in an organized manner. Equally as important is having the political and social organization to minimize the necessity of using those arms and preserving a peaceful society.
Third, (as I stated in my top-level comment) we must either take over the existing systems and institutions, or replace them with ones we have built. We cannot simply abandon the current system because the left refuses to allow anything to exist which they do not control. This is what happened during and following the Cold War, and it gave us the mess we have now.
Acting as if using any tactic which is also used by your enemy will result in defeat is retarded reasoning a level above "If you fight your enemy, they win."
That's far more reductive than what I wrote. Many of your tactics don't work for your enemy, and your enemy's tactics don't work for you. If you do nothing but mirror them, you will inevitably fail. The NVA didn't build out Helicopter squadrons because they couldn't. Their tactics had to fit their efforts.
The intelligence apparatus is more than capable of manufacturing justification for whatever actions the establishment wishes to take.
The value of that has diminished since the media's effectiveness has waned. Violence can do plenty to repulse normies, even if they don't trust you.
OK, but what should we be doing instead?
I didn't feel the need to expand on this because it wasn't relevant. But frankly, we're doing a ton of good: Securing families, securing communities, seizing local power, engaging in civil disobedience, promoting our philosophy and perspective, building parallel economies. This also addresses your second and third point.
My primary point behind this was to make sure that people understand that political violence is not something anyone on the right can actually take advantage of. Hell, the press pushed the idea that Trump sewed division and made politics abnormal, and that the insane behavior of the press to not stop screaming at the top of their lungs for 4 straight years had nothing to do with it.
That's because it was supposed to be. I have a (bad) habit of using reductive arguments that I learned in my teen years and it served me well in scoring points against idiots through college. You are correct that simply copying the strategy of your opponent will likely fail, but I thought that was such an obvious point as to be worthless, at least without providing an alternative.
I didn't feel the need to expand on this because it wasn't relevant. [...] My primary point behind this was to make sure that people understand that political violence is not something anyone on the right can actually take advantage of.
And my primary point is that telling someone who is considering it not to engage in political violence and failing to suggest an alternative course of action is worse than doing nothing. As you mention there are lots of people (though not enough, IMO) doing what needs to be done if it is going to be possible for us to win back the West through non-violent means, but if someone is considering violence in order to achieve anti-leftist political and social goals, they either haven't considered the peaceful alternatives, or they have rejected them and need to be shown that there is at least a possibility that non-violent means can succeed.
To be clear, I don't think you're wrong, just that you argument you present is ineffective at achieving the goal you appear to have (that being dissuading those who are against the left from engaging in political violence.)
t I thought that was such an obvious point as to be worthless, at least without providing an alternative.
Yeeeaaahhhh. It's definitely an obvious point, but it's not a point that is obvious to most people. I'm using it to reject the first bad assumption I see: "We can just copy their strategy and/or tactics.", and I'm also using it to lay foundation for the rest of the argument: "Since just copying a strategy doesn't work, why do we see political violence being used at all? Answer: as a weapon for the side who has violence being done to them."
And my primary point is that telling someone who is considering it not to engage in political violence and failing to suggest an alternative course of action is worse than doing nothing.
I don't think it is, because I think that there are far too many subversives and infiltrators attempting to incite violence.
or they have rejected them and need to be shown that there is at least a possibility that non-violent means can succeed.
This is why black pills are enemy propaganda.
To be clear, I don't think you're wrong, just that you argument you present is ineffective at achieving the goal you appear to have (that being dissuading those who are against the left from engaging in political violence.)
It's a fair criticism, but I wanted to get it out there.
Do you see things getting better? How long can the political right play the strong, silent type? I'm not advocating for violence myself, but more forcible actions that would probably result in it - first from the state, and then retaliatory. Do buying comic books from Eric July and making small protests at drag queen child catching events constitute a parallel economy and securing families? I don't see much bigger happening. The Republicans controlled the House when the current degeneracy really began accelerating.
Actually, the small things are wildly more important. It's the same reason why Trump being president didn't stop Leftism. It couldn't. Politics is downstream from culture, not the other way around.
Those small protests are unifying communities against Queer activism. Buying Eric July's comic books supports an anti-parallel economy. This is why the government declared school board protests terrorism, and why they are obsessed with memes and shutting down external outlets.
The reality of authoritarian systems is that they are top-down and insanely instable without constant maintenance. Totalitarianism requires unlimited scope because if the scope stops expanding, the entire system collapses. The Left is leaning hard into both authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Very simple efforts at undermining it can cause cascade failures. If you limit the scope of a totalitarian system, it collapses. If you undermine the authority of an authoritarian system, it breaks the illusion of control. If you prevent maintenance, it inevitably causes catastrophic failure.
The Leftists are well aware of these activities, and how powerful they can be, it's why "community organizers" are actually a thing on the political left, and why those positions are genuinely important. The value of these things is so important, it's why the Left deploy Antifa against protestors, why teachers and teachers unions emphasize that students are students and not children of their parents.
Organic, grass roots, momentum is something that is very difficult to stop. It's also difficult to start when it's inorganic. The Left has always dreamed of "The General Uprsising" that organically takes place and ends Capitalism. But it keeps never happening, so they adopted Leninist tactics (because he knew how to properly create an inorganic uprising). The political right has a major advantage of basically having all organic political resistance in the world, but doesn't know how to exploit it, and is to subverted by Leftist narratives to understand that they have a huge advantage, even without institutional power.
The side that doesn't control the media doesn't have much in the way of controlling the effect or perception of specific issues. We can't downplay our mistakes. We can't hyperbolize smaller issues. We can't artificially set out talking points. We can't communicate to large swathes of every target audience at the same time. We can't customize our messaging to each target audience.
There are just entire paths that are completely unavailable to us. So, our strategies have to effect that. Political violence is one of those paths. Because the Left controls the state, they can claim legitimacy to certain kinds of political violence. Because they control the media, they can actually cultivate two contradictory messages to different people: to the activist racialist core: "This is a revolution. Take to the streets, break shit, and make a show of force", while to the suburbanite default liberals: "These are entirely peaceful protests by people who are only seeking justice."
They conducted 155 days of consecutive race riots, and I still talk to people who tell me that there wasn't significant political violence in 2020.
The reason violence "works" from the left is that they are already in control of the institutions. Antifa, BLM et. al. won't be prosecuted for theft, destruction of property, violent assault, or even murder. They will receive favorable coverage in the media (or minimized coverage if their actions are harmful to the narrative). They are free to spread their message on social media largely without interference. And as long as they continue to toe the line they won't have their lives destroyed by digital (or sometimes IRL) lynch mobs, or be banned from engaging in commerce. Any action by the left that doesn't cause an overwhelmingly negative reaction from a significant portion of the populace before they can put their PR spin on it will "work" (or at least not harm them.)
Conversely, those opposed to Antifa, BLM, et. al. will be prosecuted for simply going about their lives peacefully, or exercising their rights to defend themselves, their property, or others('). Their actions will be portrayed in the harshest possible light by the media, with a healthy dose of outright lies thrown into the mix to make them look even worse. They will be heavily censored on mainstream social media sites, and even some alternatives. If they reach enough prominence, they, their employer, and/or anyone that does business with them will be harrassed online and possibly IRL until they are unable to work or engage in commerce. Nothing the right does will "work" in the short term unless they are capitalizing on a failure of the left (and these will generally only last as long as they can maintain some grasp on institutional power.)
So to summarize, for any strategy to be effective from those opposing the left, it must be part of a long term plan to subvert/destroy the existing institutions and replace them with ones we control, and/or it must be done with overwhelming public support. This is how the communists won the cold war (at the cost of the collapse of the USSR, but I'd say control of the West is a fair trade there.)
If the Fabian Socialists won (a claim that's probably more accurate than mine, but would take a bit longer to explain) they did so with the (witting or unwitting) help of the Soviet intelligence apparatus.
The Fabians and Soviets are still both fundamentally Leftist, so there's not too much of a problem when they are working together to support Socialism in America, the issue is just that the Fabians didn't want their particular structures to be subverted by Communists. They still don't.
It's not a surprise that after the KGB archives were unsealed, the State Department was massively infiltrated by the KGB. The State Department has always been a major source of Fabianism in America, so there were plenty of fellow travelers in State, even if they were at times in opposition.
The State Department might not want the USSR to put soldiers in some specific country; but they are happy let, or even assist, in the undermining of religion in the US.
I'm more Machiavellian so violence does work you just got to use it tactfully and skillfully. Not burning down cities, looting everything that isn't a book store.
You have to use it as 'a grand gesture', one massive show of force that eliminates not just a lot of your enemies but also those that pay lip service to you (useful idiots) those actively plotting against you and those that move where the breeze blows. Eliminate them all at once and then allow peace because people know how ruthless you can be, they'll prefer to deal with you in ways that don't require force.
You can do this politically speaking too so no need to 'let the bodies hit the floor'.
Violence can work, in theory, but under highly specific circumstances. Most political violence that occurs is quite random and aimless, which is why it does not succeed. I also doubt that it can work in the heavily militarized and enormously powerful modern states. And even when it does work, it is rarely the party that engaged in the most violence that ends up prevailing - the SRs committed nearly all of the terrorism in Russia, but it was the Bolsheviks who were better able to channel their violence who took over.
Far better to remain peaceful and to put the onus on them to start violence, which will chip away at their legitimacy. They can justify the murder of an Ashley Babbitt, as they can falsely claim she was an imminent threat, but it will be very difficult to justify firing into peaceful crowds. Many will, but some will not.
Violence can work, but it depends on the actual situation on the ground, and who is employing it. The west is not in one of those situations.
My biggest point here is that violence is explicitly an enemy psy-op in our particular case.
I've previously said that in regards to the political Left, violence from the political Left, against the political center-Left absolutely works by basically culling the Left into a new position. The Left wants to be on the winning side, more than literally anything.
However, these options are not available to the political anti-Left because the anti-Left is a revolutionary force. In war you can't replicate your enemy's strategy because their strategy exists to guarantee their success. Replicating all the same tactics ends up with them winning because you're just fulfilling their objectives.
In this case, Uber did not employ violent protests against the state, or even taxis, in order to gain power. They employed violent protests against themselves at the expense of their own drivers, so that they could use this as a political weapon to wield in the media, as political pressure against the law enforcement, and the state, while also showing that the government was insecure.
It also helps that the WEF is bankrolling Uber, allowing them to have a kind of industry-specific color revolution take place where they go.
Over and over again, we've seen the political left, from their establishment position, use attacks from the political right, or even claims of potential attacks from the political right, as justification for further violent crackdowns, and a curtailing of legal barriers and rights. This can go from anything from Jan. 6, to the "MAGA bomber", to the FBI orchestrated Whitmer kidnapping scandal, to the "Viper Militia" claim, to the abortion clinic bombings from the 90's, and so on.
Over and over again, the objective of Information Warfare operations is to drive the political right into violence, so that it may be channelized into an easier position to destroy.
Uber represents an extremely effective tactic from a position of strength to manipulate the situation on the ground to their advantage by guaranteeing the victimization of themselves, and using that tactically.
Even after this latest FBI shooting, we are even seeing Viva Frei being personally targeted as the man who incited the attack. The purpose of these efforts is to break the ability for political dissent to communicate; to reduce their public effectiveness; and rationalize more violent crackdowns on dissenters.
Do NOT trust people who are calling for violence, particularly on the eve of a mid-term election that is nearly guaranteed to win the Republicans the House, and after an illegal FBI raid unified the political right around Donald Trump for a moment, and even got progressives like Tulsi Gabbard and Jimmy Dore objecting to it.
Part of the purpose of Black Pills is to help demoralize a target population, and then to use that sense of hopelessness to inspire them into violence. This is why Black Pills and advocations of violence are enemy strategy, not just retarded.
Acting as if using any tactic which is also used by your enemy will result in defeat is retarded reasoning a level above "If you fight your enemy, they win." You are correct that if the anti-left resorted to burning, looting, and murdering, that they would just be accomplishing the goals of the left, but the fact that you can already largely distinguish "right wing violence" by the fact that it targets (which is the key word) establishment institutions instead of the general public indicates that you don't have to worry about the right going BLM.
The intelligence apparatus is more than capable of manufacturing justification for whatever actions the establishment wishes to take. Rational people aren't going to go lone wolf against an FBI building because they realize that isn't going to accomplish any of their political goals. I agree that we should probably be discouraging people from doing retarded shit like attacking fortified buildings with nail guns, but it's going to happen (once again, if for no other reason, because the intelligence apparatus will stage it.)
The anti-left was handed a major PR victory here, though it's one which they will be unable to capitalize on for at least the next three months. We can only hope that this gives enough institutional support to stop the bleeding 'til then, and that they actually do capitalize if they win (and God help us if they don't.) But I digress
OK, but what should we be doing instead? I know it's way harder to present a viable alternative than to just say "that's bad, don't do that", but for those careening toward the abyss, just saying "don't do that" isn't just unhelpful, it's actively harmful. With that said, in order to avoid hypocrisy, I'll give a short summary of what we should be doing instead of downing the blackpill.
First, we should be reducing our dependence on the existing system and working to become more self sufficient. Find a means of supporting yourself and your family that is as resilient as possible to cancellation and economic destruction by the left and their policies. This will look different for everyone depending on their individual skillsets, and it will be harder than going with the flow, but there are a variety of options here.
Second, we should be preparing to effectively resist tyranny (Fuck off AoV this isn't going to be a call to violence, and even if it were, it's constitutionally protected speech and the hypothetical violence would also be constitutionally protected.) To paraphrase the Second Amendment, "A properly functioning militia is necessary to secure a free state." That means not just being armed, but being familiar with the function of those arms, being physically and mentally fit, and having a group of likeminded individuals prepared to use those arms in an organized manner. Equally as important is having the political and social organization to minimize the necessity of using those arms and preserving a peaceful society.
Third, (as I stated in my top-level comment) we must either take over the existing systems and institutions, or replace them with ones we have built. We cannot simply abandon the current system because the left refuses to allow anything to exist which they do not control. This is what happened during and following the Cold War, and it gave us the mess we have now.
That's far more reductive than what I wrote. Many of your tactics don't work for your enemy, and your enemy's tactics don't work for you. If you do nothing but mirror them, you will inevitably fail. The NVA didn't build out Helicopter squadrons because they couldn't. Their tactics had to fit their efforts.
The value of that has diminished since the media's effectiveness has waned. Violence can do plenty to repulse normies, even if they don't trust you.
I didn't feel the need to expand on this because it wasn't relevant. But frankly, we're doing a ton of good: Securing families, securing communities, seizing local power, engaging in civil disobedience, promoting our philosophy and perspective, building parallel economies. This also addresses your second and third point.
My primary point behind this was to make sure that people understand that political violence is not something anyone on the right can actually take advantage of. Hell, the press pushed the idea that Trump sewed division and made politics abnormal, and that the insane behavior of the press to not stop screaming at the top of their lungs for 4 straight years had nothing to do with it.
That's because it was supposed to be. I have a (bad) habit of using reductive arguments that I learned in my teen years and it served me well in scoring points against idiots through college. You are correct that simply copying the strategy of your opponent will likely fail, but I thought that was such an obvious point as to be worthless, at least without providing an alternative.
And my primary point is that telling someone who is considering it not to engage in political violence and failing to suggest an alternative course of action is worse than doing nothing. As you mention there are lots of people (though not enough, IMO) doing what needs to be done if it is going to be possible for us to win back the West through non-violent means, but if someone is considering violence in order to achieve anti-leftist political and social goals, they either haven't considered the peaceful alternatives, or they have rejected them and need to be shown that there is at least a possibility that non-violent means can succeed.
To be clear, I don't think you're wrong, just that you argument you present is ineffective at achieving the goal you appear to have (that being dissuading those who are against the left from engaging in political violence.)
Yeeeaaahhhh. It's definitely an obvious point, but it's not a point that is obvious to most people. I'm using it to reject the first bad assumption I see: "We can just copy their strategy and/or tactics.", and I'm also using it to lay foundation for the rest of the argument: "Since just copying a strategy doesn't work, why do we see political violence being used at all? Answer: as a weapon for the side who has violence being done to them."
I don't think it is, because I think that there are far too many subversives and infiltrators attempting to incite violence.
This is why black pills are enemy propaganda.
It's a fair criticism, but I wanted to get it out there.
Do you see things getting better? How long can the political right play the strong, silent type? I'm not advocating for violence myself, but more forcible actions that would probably result in it - first from the state, and then retaliatory. Do buying comic books from Eric July and making small protests at drag queen child catching events constitute a parallel economy and securing families? I don't see much bigger happening. The Republicans controlled the House when the current degeneracy really began accelerating.
Actually, the small things are wildly more important. It's the same reason why Trump being president didn't stop Leftism. It couldn't. Politics is downstream from culture, not the other way around.
Those small protests are unifying communities against Queer activism. Buying Eric July's comic books supports an anti-parallel economy. This is why the government declared school board protests terrorism, and why they are obsessed with memes and shutting down external outlets.
The reality of authoritarian systems is that they are top-down and insanely instable without constant maintenance. Totalitarianism requires unlimited scope because if the scope stops expanding, the entire system collapses. The Left is leaning hard into both authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Very simple efforts at undermining it can cause cascade failures. If you limit the scope of a totalitarian system, it collapses. If you undermine the authority of an authoritarian system, it breaks the illusion of control. If you prevent maintenance, it inevitably causes catastrophic failure.
The Leftists are well aware of these activities, and how powerful they can be, it's why "community organizers" are actually a thing on the political left, and why those positions are genuinely important. The value of these things is so important, it's why the Left deploy Antifa against protestors, why teachers and teachers unions emphasize that students are students and not children of their parents.
Organic, grass roots, momentum is something that is very difficult to stop. It's also difficult to start when it's inorganic. The Left has always dreamed of "The General Uprsising" that organically takes place and ends Capitalism. But it keeps never happening, so they adopted Leninist tactics (because he knew how to properly create an inorganic uprising). The political right has a major advantage of basically having all organic political resistance in the world, but doesn't know how to exploit it, and is to subverted by Leftist narratives to understand that they have a huge advantage, even without institutional power.
The side that doesnt control the media has to be more subtle about it.
The side that doesn't control the media doesn't have much in the way of controlling the effect or perception of specific issues. We can't downplay our mistakes. We can't hyperbolize smaller issues. We can't artificially set out talking points. We can't communicate to large swathes of every target audience at the same time. We can't customize our messaging to each target audience.
There are just entire paths that are completely unavailable to us. So, our strategies have to effect that. Political violence is one of those paths. Because the Left controls the state, they can claim legitimacy to certain kinds of political violence. Because they control the media, they can actually cultivate two contradictory messages to different people: to the activist racialist core: "This is a revolution. Take to the streets, break shit, and make a show of force", while to the suburbanite default liberals: "These are entirely peaceful protests by people who are only seeking justice."
They conducted 155 days of consecutive race riots, and I still talk to people who tell me that there wasn't significant political violence in 2020.
The reason violence "works" from the left is that they are already in control of the institutions. Antifa, BLM et. al. won't be prosecuted for theft, destruction of property, violent assault, or even murder. They will receive favorable coverage in the media (or minimized coverage if their actions are harmful to the narrative). They are free to spread their message on social media largely without interference. And as long as they continue to toe the line they won't have their lives destroyed by digital (or sometimes IRL) lynch mobs, or be banned from engaging in commerce. Any action by the left that doesn't cause an overwhelmingly negative reaction from a significant portion of the populace before they can put their PR spin on it will "work" (or at least not harm them.)
Conversely, those opposed to Antifa, BLM, et. al. will be prosecuted for simply going about their lives peacefully, or exercising their rights to defend themselves, their property, or others('). Their actions will be portrayed in the harshest possible light by the media, with a healthy dose of outright lies thrown into the mix to make them look even worse. They will be heavily censored on mainstream social media sites, and even some alternatives. If they reach enough prominence, they, their employer, and/or anyone that does business with them will be harrassed online and possibly IRL until they are unable to work or engage in commerce. Nothing the right does will "work" in the short term unless they are capitalizing on a failure of the left (and these will generally only last as long as they can maintain some grasp on institutional power.)
So to summarize, for any strategy to be effective from those opposing the left, it must be part of a long term plan to subvert/destroy the existing institutions and replace them with ones we control, and/or it must be done with overwhelming public support. This is how the communists won the cold war (at the cost of the collapse of the USSR, but I'd say control of the West is a fair trade there.)
Agreed. Except for the last bit. The Fabian Socialists won the Cold War, but they were also fighting it against the Communists.
If the Fabian Socialists won (a claim that's probably more accurate than mine, but would take a bit longer to explain) they did so with the (witting or unwitting) help of the Soviet intelligence apparatus.
Yes, and it was both witting and unwitting.
The Fabians and Soviets are still both fundamentally Leftist, so there's not too much of a problem when they are working together to support Socialism in America, the issue is just that the Fabians didn't want their particular structures to be subverted by Communists. They still don't.
It's not a surprise that after the KGB archives were unsealed, the State Department was massively infiltrated by the KGB. The State Department has always been a major source of Fabianism in America, so there were plenty of fellow travelers in State, even if they were at times in opposition.
The State Department might not want the USSR to put soldiers in some specific country; but they are happy let, or even assist, in the undermining of religion in the US.
Nearly the entire history of humanity is based on violence or the threat of it.
This doesn't change anything about what I said.