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.
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.