Here’s the speech Obama made today addressing the San Bernardino attacks
President Obama used his regular weekly address to discuss the San Bernardino shootings, which now have been categorized—although not by Obama—as the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.
He offered very tepid stuff in terms of the terrorist connection, as one might expect. The speech began with praise for the police and rescuers and sympathy for the victims and families (and prayers; notify the Daily News that the president has gone off the reservation). But when Obama starts discussing the causes of the attack, he defers to the investigators—although those very investigators have now said they are investigating it as a terrorist attack. All he has to say about that is the following:
It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to commit this act of terror. And if so, it would underscore a threat we’ve been focused on for years””the danger of people succumbing to violent extremist ideologies. We know that ISIL and other terrorist groups are actively encouraging people””around the world and in our country””to commit terrible acts of violence, often times as lone wolf actors. And even as we work to prevent attacks, all of us””government, law enforcement, communities, faith leaders””need to work together to prevent people from falling victim to these hateful ideologies.
Let’s take that sentence by sentence.
It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to commit this act of terror.
“Possible” is a word with very little meaning, that sounds as though it means more than it does. “Possible” merely means that something has not been absolutely ruled out and that it’s therefore not impossible. The possibility can be .0001% or 99.9999% or anything in-between. “Entirely” possible is another one of those phrases that gives the impression of being stronger than it is. It doesn’t really tell you whether it’s likely or not (if the speaker meant “likely” he’d have said it). It just means it is really really really possible.
And if so, it would underscore a threat we’ve been focused on for years””the danger of people succumbing to violent extremist ideologies.
Nothing to do with Islam so far; just the generalized “extremist ideologies” such as white supremacy, which no doubt Obama had fervently wished this attack had been motivated by the minute he heard about the shooting. Another “violent extremist ideology” among so many.
We know that ISIL and other terrorist groups are actively encouraging people””around the world and in our country””to commit terrible acts of violence, often times as lone wolf actors.
The first—and only—mention of the fact that ISIS (which he continues to call ISIL) has sophisticated propaganda with a wide reach, urging its supporters to violence and mayhem worldwide in the name of (shhh, don’t mention it except hidden in that first “I” of the acronym “ISIL”) Islam.
And even as we work to prevent attacks, all of us””government, law enforcement, communities, faith leaders””need to work together to prevent people from falling victim to these hateful ideologies.
Generic boilerplate—how, pray tell? How? By being the weak horse?
Then Obama segues to gun control, his favorite topic these days. Even though this crime occurred in California, land of strict gun control, and even though he can’t quite figure out a single suggestion that would have made a particle of difference here, he still harps on gun control as some general way to prevent these things.
Obama ends with:
We are strong. And we are resilient. And we will not be terrorized.
He thinks by saying it, he can make it so. That’s the way his life has worked. Words got him where he is. But his actions (and/or lack thereof) have made us much less safe, less strong, less resilient, and more vulnerable to the terrorists here and abroad. And the terrorists are well aware of it.
[ADDENDUM: Reminded by a comment from “Ann,” I want to point out that there are actually three phrases in Obama’s speech that suggest lack of agency by the perpetrators. One is “were radicalized,” the second is “succumbing,” and the third is “falling victim to.” That last phrase in particular conjures up the idea of the perpetrators as fellow victims rather than voluntary, knowing, aware actors who are responsible for their own choices and their own deeds.]
What grabs my attention most in that address is the “falling victim” bit. Doesn’t that take agency away from Farook and his wife? And also bunch them together with the actual victims of the massacre?
The twit pResident voted in by the womyn, TWICE.
Islam is above all a womyn problem!
Nothing we can effectively do unless the US chicks stop cooing.
Great statement, Neo.
His actions. Never his words, which seem still to soothe the gullible, the wishful, the deniers. And give cover to his running dogs.
It is too too sad the days of marching on the castle with pitchforks are gone forever.
” The public may never know what motivated a 24-year-old Chattanooga man to kill four Marines and a sailor in an attack on Chattanooga’s U.S. Naval and Marine Reserve Center last July.
Investigators have said Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was a homegrown violent extremist but have not offered more details about what motivated the attack that began at a military recruiting center and ended when Abdulazeez was shot to death by police who followed him to the reserve center.
“We’re still trying to make sure we understand Abdulazeez, his motivations and associations, in a really good way,” FBI Director James Comey told reporters during a visit to Nashville’s FBI field office on Friday.
Comey said he understands the public interest in the shooting, but he did not know whether there would ever be a public report on it.
“Sometimes the way we investigate requires us to keep information secret. That’s a good thing. We don’t want to smear people,” he said.
Pattern.
G6loq:
I’m getting tired of your oversimplifications.
Obama’s demographic was a great deal more than women.
You could blame black people. Or black and other minority women. Because white women went strongly Republican in 2012:
Or you could say it about single women. Because married women voted for Romney.
You could also say it about young people under 30, who voted so overwhelmingly for Obama in 2012 that it mattered greatly in the result:
Neo: “how, pray tell? How? By being the weak horse?”
Yep. The fundamental test is ‘strong horse’? Or ‘weak horse’?
Conservatives who criticize the neocon/liberal/leader-of-the-free-world aspect of President Bush’s approach to the War on Terror overlook the steel under the skin.
The Bush approach was fundamentally designed to position the US as the ‘strong horse’ in the arena, which in non-permissive situations like the War on Terror can only be accomplished organically with boots on the ground, ie, American Soldiers and Marines. Drone strikes and bombing, if only by themselves and not in support of a sufficiently competitive ground element, indicate a ‘weak horse’.
In the near term, even through the next generation, a long-term plan of liberal reform would not be the primary influence. Local societies were not reasonably expected to wholly normalize a liberal worldview in the near term. The Bush administration explicitly discouraged an expectation for liberal reform to take hold in the near term. timeline. Rather, the primary influence in the near term, just like in the near term following WW2, would be the constant US-led ‘strong horse’ on the ground.
But then, President Obama rejected President Eisenhower’s precedent of positioning the US as the constant ‘strong horse’ from our last global contest against a totalitarian competitor.
As with Ann, the lack of agency really jumps out at me. Must be so very hard for Obama to even say these weasel words.
As for his lame attempt at talking tough, I would edit it as follows:
We are strong. We are ARMED, and ready to stop anyone who wishes to commit terrorist acts within our borders.
Neo: “He thinks by saying it, he can make it so.”
I highly doubt he believes that saying it will make it so in terms of winning counter-terrorism.
Rather, that’s not his priority. As insider account after insider account has attested, his priority is tuned always to domestic politics.
And domestic politics are tuned to the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game, where narrative is elective truth. And the truth is just another narrative that must be competed for like any other.
Unfortunately, getting US-led counter-terrorism right depends on getting US domestic politics right, which requires the Right winning the activist game that the Right neglects to compete in.
I wish you would stop with the “activist game”, Eric.
And also stop with Obama’s focus on domestic politics stuff.
Obama is engaged in the destruction of the USA. This is not “politics.” It is not a game.It is bloody effing serious.
This is an internal Armageddon. It is Life and Death. We are being slaughtered. He is destroying the USA, and he is laughing as he reboards AF One. We are paying him to do this! The sheep are paying admission fees to enter the slaughterhouse!
Two additional words come to mind in describing our leader when it comes to the war of our generation: laconic and irresolute. His term cannot end soon enough.
Frog Says:
December 5th, 2015 at 3:55 pm
Agreed. It’s gotten to be like a broken record.
I fail to see how Marxism can be defeated by adopting the “Marxist method activist game”.
From what I understand, the name “ISIL” refers to the inclusion of the Levant in “ISIS” claimed territory, even if only a wishful inclusion. That would by most definitions include Israel.
Every time our Fearless Leader says “ISIL” he is giving a nod to the terrorists’ eventual wish to destroy and conquer Israel.
I think it quite interesting that in OBama’s infrequent meetings with the press Obama says “ISIL” and most of the reporters use the term “ISIS” right back at him. I’m sure he wants to yell “ISIL, ISIL, ISIL, you dolts!”
Susanamantha Says:
December 5th, 2015 at 4:39 pm
That is exactly correct and it is no accident.
neo-neocon Says:
December 5th, 2015 at 2:43 pm
G6loq:
I’m getting tired of your oversimplifications.
I know the Obama/Womyn numbers. Distinctions without differences. They put socialists over the top. They are horrid.
It will have to be you going after your ‘sisters’ for that to change.
Same with Islam. If it’d bother the womyn there would be no Islam problem.
Fact is, they coo.
It is the fanatic/activist that matters. The rest are sheeple. Nuances of sub-categories are of no import.
Good explanation of Obama’s use of ISIL, Susanmantha. I just got an e-mail from a friend explaining it the same way. This needs to be circulated far and wide.
Good explanation of Obama’s use of ISIL, Susanmantha. I just got an e-mail from a friend explaining it the same way. This needs to be circulated far and wide…
Semantics matter.
Like this “We” giveaway.
Horrible!
G6loq:
If you know the numbers, then blaming women generally makes no sense. So either you don’t know the numbers, or you don’t care about the truth and you’d rather propagandize.
You also pick and choose who to blame. You could just as easily blame black voters, Hispanic voters, single women, black women, voters under 30, professors, radical feminists. Blaming women is the wrong category, and you say you know it and yet go ahead and do it anyway.
G6loq does raise a point with validity: increasing feminization.
The feminine is a state of mind. Feminization is everywhere, in fact, in deed, in thinking.
Not every woman. That’s not what it’s about.
It is a way of approaching and dealing with issues and with people.
It used to be called “catty.”
The two instances one can be absolutely certain the “Prez” told the truth were both inauguration ceremonies when he said, “I, Barack H. Obama”. In Jan of 2009 this was followed on fast with his first lie in office, “Do solemnly swear to protect and defend the Constitution…”.
Nothing he says can be trusted. Nothing he does can be believed.
If he does not turn his self ’round, he may get the “Depart from me you wicked” at the last trump.
(Heh, no, not that Trump.)
rickl: “I fail to see how Marxism can be defeated by adopting the “Marxist method activist game”.
That’s why you lose.
Frog: “It is not a game.It is bloody effing serious.”
The activist game is serious.
How serious is it? Our nation was wrested and founded with an activist game. America’s founding fathers were Marxist-method activists before there was Karl Marx.
It’s the only social cultural/political game there is. When you’re being competed against by the likes of the Left, then the only way to win the game and not lose the game is to play the game to win.
The alt-Right, sensing a ‘weak horse’ on the Right, is picking up the game, too. The game is evolutionary. If the mainstream conservatives of the Right don’t collectively, fully, and permanently begin playing the game in earnest ASAP, they will be made obsolete.
Is there a reason why we shouldn’t just shoot Marxists on sight? And Muslims too.
Eric:
Middle class Americans who are busy working for a living, raising our families, and, you know, just living our lives in peace, will never ever “play the Marxist method activist game”.
That “game” was designed for people who believe that they are oppressed and discriminated against, and are hankering for revenge. They also tend to be people who are not gainfully employed, or who are being subsidized by welfare or student loans, and so have time on their hands to attend protest marches and such.
Normal middle class people who are generally content with their lives will never play that “game”, and have no interest in it or time for it.
So we are going to have to come up with another strategy.
rickl Says:
December 5th, 2015 at 7:18 pm
Is there a reason why we shouldn’t just shoot Marxists on sight? And Muslims too.
No.
Soon you’ll have to climb down from the staggering heights of your moral superiority … fast.
Frog:
That’s a completely different point, though. He was speaking of voting patterns of women.
“Feminization” of the type you’re describing is a different thing, and far more difficult to measure. I think of it more as the “therapy-ization” of our society.
But on the level of feminization, this is awfully funny:
rickl:
You are correct about the reluctance of the right to play the activist game Eric keeps advocating, but unfortunately I believe it means “we” will lose.
I think Eric is right in his strategic and tactical assessment.
G6loq:
Oh, so you think being against “shooting Marxists and Muslims on sight” is an example of “staggering heights of your moral superiority”?
Really?
You are in favor of vigilantism whereby you shoot people on sight for their political or political/religious beliefs?
Really?
I would call that “staggering depths of moral depravity.”
In war, we kill the soldiers of the enemy. We even kill civilians at times, in bombing campaigns as collateral damage. We have never descended to anything even remotely like what you are advocating, which is the approach of Hitler and Pol Pot.
Ann, thank you for pointing out Obama’s lumping the killers in as victims. I am afraid I had sailed right past that. What a warped worldview he has, when he can come up with a twisted view of the case as that. Truly a self deluded individual. A post at American Thinker points out that it may be about to get far worse for us here if Obama has his way. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/obama_will_use_tpp_to_enforce_his_climate_agreement.html
I believe the elephant in the room is that Syed Farook was a sociopath long before he was radicalized for mass murderer. The chilling description of an apparently normal man who suddenly turned out to be an ISIS assassin is typical for sociopaths who can be quite pleasant and can appear friendly when it suites them.
Obviously, every Muslim is not a sociopath, but Islam is able to produce an inordinate number of sociopaths. The old nature vs. nurture conundrum applies to the development of the sociopathic personality but in Islam both factors are probably equally in play. Because polygamy is widespread, the more aggressive males probably selectively reproduce and transmit their genes to the next generation. The fact that Allah’s love is always contingent produces an uncertainty into Muslim society which affects every human interaction including widespread abusive child rearing practices. Couple that with the constant drumbeat of hatred for Jews in particular and all other infidels in general in which children are marinated from birth and it would be surprising if Islam was not chock full of sociopaths.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/basics/causes/con-20027920
I have no interest in playing “games” of any kind at this point.
rickl, me neither. That’s why I bought another 8 round magazine Thursday. Gives me access to 23 rounds total. Though I don’t live in Cali, they’d be legal there.
….and I have no desire to shoot first and ask questions later. First shot fired won’t be mine.
Even if Eric is correct about playing the Marxist activist game, which I don’t believe is possible without becoming the same as your opponent –
I think most of us got his message the 1500th time he wrote it.
I’m actually playing the activist game.
But, I’m a mote in the global dust storm.
I can only influence // open eyes – to a tiny audience – I wouldn’t put it higher than fifty — with five souls a better bet.
( Most forums // blogs have readerships far larger than those posting. I can only hope that a glimmer gets through.
It’s activism at this small scale that turns the flow of realization, then action.
Most assume that only ‘the big stuff’ can count.
Eric is trying to get across reality. We’re being attacked up and down the scale, so jump in, even at the bottom, and make your pitch.
Normal middle class people who are generally content with their lives will never play that “game”, and have no interest in it or time for it.
So we are going to have to come up with another strategy.
That’s why the alt right participates in grey economics, internet businesses, and social media. They fund their activism, so to speak, from their jobs. Their jobs are 80% on the internet, after all. Their followers do not have such economic independence, but their followers are just following the overall strategy.
To refer to a concrete example, GamerGate and Hugo awards for authors, are just two notable previous examples.
The normal middle class people before Civil War I and the War of Independence, weren’t doing anything either. That’s not their job.
Eric prefers to use one label and brand, activism, to describe several extremely separate subjects in my view. Which are 4th generational warfare, insurgency methods, guerilla warfare, occupation tactics, psychological brainwashing, mind control, propaganda, etc etc.
Part of activism is also propaganda, i.e. branding.
Which is why dropping the “Marxist” before activism is a good idea. And Eric has more or less done that, although people probably forget given the numerous instances.
There’s no war where one side has won without becoming like their enemy. It’s pretty much impossible, that kind of purity results in a total defeat. Take Spain as one example. They were occupied by the Umayyid dynasty, the Caliph would order thousands of blue eyed virgins to be taken as slaves in various raids across Sicily, Italy, France, Spain, etc.
When the Spanish and Portuguese cultural armies finally drove the Muslims out, they still retained Muslim style slavery and Muslim style cruelty. Their cruelty was a defense mechanism, they absorbed that from their conquerors, and used it against them. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Shrugs, it is what allowed them to survive and eventually win.
The Indian kshatriya habit of burning widows came from meeting Islamic Jihad as well. Of maintaining pure lines by preventing widows from being taken as Islamic sex slaves, similar to suicidal traditions like hara kiri by other warrior cultures like the Japanese samurai.
The power of Islam should not be underestimated. Nor should the power of the Left. Nobody will remain “pure” if they truly desire victory against evil. That’s not how it works.
For people who want some more “active” operations.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/11/brainstorm-urban-tactics-survival.html
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/11/brainstorm-urban-survival-tactics.html
Here’s the comment I found interesting food for tactics, in full.
and what we in the West can realistically do about the reality of 4GW in our hometowns.
First, recognize that we’re at war. If that doesn’t happen, it’s over. I’m not one of your participants, so I’ll just offer my thoughts now and you guys can choose to discuss or not discuss as you wish.
No discussion of such events can realistically evaluate solutions without a discussion of the “man in the middle” which is the security apparatus of whatever state has jurisdiction. Differing political viewpoints will assess the situation differently (duh!) but the fact remains that in the vast majority of the situations the security apparatus of the state is the ally of the invaders by simply upholding the laws that never envisioned such an invasion. Any person who is engaged in resistance to the invasion is subject to detainment, arrest, prosecution and punishment under a legal rubric that has no exception for the current circumstances. This situation has a significant deterrent effect on resistance. However, technology is opening Pandora’s box. The problem, in this case, is Pandora is a nympho-maniacal slut.
Carrying weapons is a reactionary defensive protocol for people subject to draconian rules. What about offensive action? Without offense there is no victory.
The essential forensic assumption at any time a weapon is fired is there is a human holding the weapon. From a technology standpoint this is no longer reliable but that’s still the way it is. If a remote-control drone can be built and operated with OTS tech, it is trivial for a nearly identical remote-control tech to be developed to operate firearms from a remote site using wireless control. When the platform plan using common components and open-source code is released, you have a game-changing situation because the shooter can literally be separated from the weapon by thousands of miles. 3D printed weapons is nothing compared to this.
Yes, I know, that sword slices both ways, but it’s a numbers game in a genocidal conflict.
Separate the shooter from the weapon and the only tool the security forces have left is DNA and the hope they could tie someone to the weapon after the fact. That assumes they could find said weapon. And… the problem for the security apparatus is in such a conflict, over time they will truly become the “man in the middle” subject to hostile fire from both sides.
The problem with an IED is it’s a single-use weapon and explosives are difficult to come by. Something as simple as a Ruger 10-22 can be silenced easily (oil filter with grease sprayed on the inside) and has a reasonable range of 100 yards in which it can inflict serious damage. Bump it up to the venerable M-1 Carbine and you have a weapon system that will deliver killing shots out to 200 yards. That’s a huge cone of fire in which to investigate, especially in an urban setting. Use any of the common high-capacity pistols and you’ve got a very small package that can be mounted in a surprisingly interesting number of places. The average urban environment is saturated with wireless signal and that’s to say nothing of the 4G networks. What are they going to do? Shut off the phones and internet?
25. Artisanal Toad November 19, 2015 10:45 PM
Remember the 1st rule of forensic investigation: a human was pulling the trigger. If it wasn’t possible for a human to be there, they don’t give the location a second glance. And way back in my hind-brain I’m remembering the wisdom of one of my sniper instructors: “the best place to hide is in an open field. The human mind dismisses it and looks for cover and concealment.” How much more so the brain’s ability to ignore a location no human could ever be. Like the side of a building or a lamp-post.
A defensive position is always untenable over time because the war is only won by offensive combat. One goes on the defense to consolidate, rest, recover and train in preparation for another offensive campaign. This is more complicated when it comes to defending hearth and home but it simply re-emphasizes the fact that the tactical advantage always goes to the offensive movement. Close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver or repel the enemies’ assault by fire and close combat. Take the fight to them because if you let the enemy bring the fight to you on his terms and his timetable you’re going to get hurt.
I think it was Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest who said “Them what gets thar fustess with the mostess wins.” It also seems somehow perversely appropriate to bring up Lord Montrose because it’s true: “He fears his fate too much or his deserts are small, who dares not put it too the touch, to win or lose it all.” When the trigger is pulled from miles away, what fate does one have to fear other than their own loose lips? That’s the game-changer.
I worked in a certain Southern city a couple of years back in which the city fathers decided to plop down the bucks and buy an acoustic gunshot detection system. When they rolled it out they did months of research mapping where the most shooting took place and when they were ready they swarmed those areas with cops. If somebody pulled the trigger the cops got the data in their squadcar within seconds, mapped within 20 feet. If it was a drive-by they got the location, direction and speed of the vehicle. The cops were literally arriving while the shooting was still happening or the idiots in question (IIQ’s) were standing there with still-smoking weapons. Interestingly, the cops did some testing and discovered that suppressed weapons evaded their acoustic detectors. The acoustic detectors have their limitations, but they will become more popular as a law enforcement tool in the future.
Research “solvent trap converter” and consider the fact that a large oil filter liberally sprayed on the inside with lithium disulphide grease will suppress the sound of a gunshot better than a top of the line sionics silencer. At a cost of about $6.95 and whatever the squirt of grease cost. The first round pops a hole in the end of the filter. Unscrew and throw it away when finished. Is it illegal? Of course!
But, what if said totally illegal shooting system is installed in an innocuous place and once every few weeks or so (30 round mag) it gets used to deliver a *single* precisely aimed shot that ends a life. Counter-sniper doctrine and practice simply doesn’t work on this one. Trust me. A half-dozen such platforms suitably installed months prior (who pays attention to maintenance people?) could render a so-called “no-go-zone” a self-imposed kill zone.
How would that work? Remember, Google is your friend. Take a look at the “Beltway Snipers” and drill down. The economic damage was estimated to be in the Billions of dollars during their 3-week spree. Now, imagine those same bozos had purchased a utility maintenance vehicle and installed a dozen of the devices I’ve just described (wildly inflated cost of $1000 each). Instead of driving around, they meet every day at Starbux or Micky-D’s and use their free wifi to pop a few people.
We see the same thing here except that we’ve got a huge army of gamers who can handle a dozen modules with ease.
26. Artisanal Toad November 19, 2015 10:46 PM
But, wait! You say the signal can be detected and located! Really? I can think of a half-dozen ways to run a network of remote shooters that would give the NSA fits trying to locate them. And I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to tech. I know guys who would consider this child’s play given the right equipment.
Now… let’s talk about the rolling bombs. Internal combustion engines use a highly explosive substance called gasoline. Want to guess what a tracer round does when it hits the gas tank? Especially if the tank is about empty? Ka-Boom! A few ball rounds to open the tank and get the gas on the ground, then a tracer or two to start the fire. First thing that goes is the tires. Lots of smoke. Then the tank explodes, lots of flame and heat. Again, all while sipping your fru-fru drink at Starbux.
The worst (or best, considering your POV) part about it is the best targets of opportunity are the security forces drawn to the area and the rubber-neckers. That’s where the .22’s come into their own. Virtually no sound, just damage. Target legs and people go down, nobody knows where it came from. Lots of screaming. Efforts to rescue. More people go down. Security forces are now pretty much required to act. Ka-Boom. Ka-Boom. Civilian population scared shitless and suddenly nobody on the street. Security forces completely intimidated, especially by the fact they are completely unable to deal with the threat.
The reason this works so well in “no-go” zones is such areas have their own security forces. They’re usually just local thugs without experience or training. The real security forces are uniformed and official, offering an easy ID. When the locals see their so-called “security” is powerless, they shift back to the legitimate security forces. When the legitimate security forces realize they aren’t being targeted, and it doesn’t take long, they realize they have someone (anonymous) on their side and gain confidence.
I only have one experience in which the local security forces were contacted during an operation for coordination, but it took less than 5 minutes. In that case I had live shooters in place and my XO coordinated with the locals (he was native). The cops knew they weren’t being targeted and knew they had covering fire and it worked out well. Knowing you have overwatch in place is HUGE and it really doesn’t matter who they are as long as they’re protecting you. I didn’t have a chance to follow up on that but I wish I had.
All my experience with real teams using hand-held weapon systems is dwarfed by what could be done with remote-controlled weapon systems. In the real world a sniper fires a single shot and scoots 50% of the time. Maybe he takes another shot. Maybe, just maybe he takes a third, but at that point they’re moving out and their movement makes them targets.
In urban terrain this changes a bit but it depends on the opposition and threat. The game-changer is separating the weapon from the shooter in a precision shooting environment.””””””””””””””””””””””””””
My Assessment of His Infantile Majesty, as always: VAST TESTICULAR CONCAVITY.
(**Oh, and be assured, He’s PROUD of said Concavity.**)
___________________________________
Tonight he’ll expose his Nuthin’ Crotch some more in a National Address. Jeepers…Think I’ll
watch the 100th Birthday tribute to Frankie.
I am not talking about purity and not being able to fight for your cause. To match the left, to play their game, requires: constant lying, having no principles, no intellectual consistency, no values other than winning, trampling on people’s rights, a lust for totalitarianism, etc. In other words, to become them, to degrade and devolve into their wretched state. If you think that is winning, then we’ll have to disagree.
KLSmith:
If you think that’s what Eric is advocating, you haven’t been reading his comments.
He is advocating in-your-face confrontation on many points, including the history of the Iraq War and the reasons for fighting it (something he considers a pivotal propaganda point of the left, and a necessary one to counter).
His template for activism—or one of them, anyway—is the successful push to reinstate ROTC at that leftist stronghold, Columbia. He’s put up countless comments on this and other detailed subjects, but this is the most recent, for example.
Neo: yes, I have read most of Eric’s comments and agree that those are his main points. And the right does need to get more serious and more confrontional. I’m saying that, if you want a Marxist activist game, it can’t end with only what he is advocating. You won’t win by stopping there. The left always escalates and never quits. We cannot beat them at their game using their own tactics unless we get as slimy as they are. To clarify, I actually agree with many of Eric’s points. Just not the logical conclusion it would have to come to. And I agree with Rickl’s point about middle class apolitical people with jobs, even though natural allies, not caring to get involved.
To match the left, to play their game
As people mentioned before, it’s not a game, although it can be trained as a game much as war games are training for war that isn’t a game.
In that sense, if you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying.
If you think that is winning, then we’ll have to disagree.
And in war, do you think you can protect your comrades and your country by shielding them with your back and soaking up all the bullets?
The enemy is trying to kill you, thus do you become just like the enemy if you try to kill them?
The morality of your society dictates that if you use the enemy’s tactics, you become like them. That is merely another slave shackle they put on conditioned slaves, to keep them in check.
Violence and other things in Western society have been so stigmatized that if a person uses a kitchen knife in self defense, it is now just as bad as if a serial killer used a kitchen knife to kill some children at a farm or school. One loses sight of the fact that the knife is merely a tool. The Left uses tools and tactics in war, but those are tactics, not merely ultimate evil. Whether it should be used or not, is a question of necessity and need, not one of morality.
We cannot beat them at their game using their own tactics unless we get as slimy as they are.
I consider it a matter of skill. Two gunfighters and warriors may use the same school of tactics in their duel, but the one that achieves victory is the one with better skill and or luck.
The Left isn’t shooting bullets. They are destroying the moral, ethical, intellectual fabric of our country. And trying to substitute America’s liberty with their totalitarian dreams. We must be talking about two different things.
You must think Waco 1, Waco 2, Ruby Ridge, SWAT team swatting, Elian Gonzalez, and various other gov operations like Fast and Furious are different things then.
I wonder how long you can keep that up, in order to justify your purity of purpose.
When you don’t even see the enemy for what they are, what’s the point of your view to begin with.
They are destroying the moral, ethical, intellectual fabric of our country.
To begin with, and to end with it. You have no idea what the Leftist alliance is doing, that has been obvious so far from your assessments, KL.
Ymar: you are correct. I, unlike you, am not omniscient and know everything and know all the answers. I bet I’m also not as big of an ahole.
KLSmith, rickl,
I wish there was another way. But wishing for another way doesn’t change the demands for winning and not losing the race at hand.
Like I’ve said, I’m a former activist because I burned out playing the game. That my team won doesn’t change that there’s a lot about competitive participatory politics that rubs me the wrong way. They’re not gentle. But my personal reaction doesn’t change that it was the only way to reify the cause I advocated and counter the Left activists who opposed it.
If you don’t want to turn into your opponents, then don’t. We didn’t. Winning the game awards you the power to act on your terms rather than react on theirs. But yes, they don’t give up. The Left zealously competes. Once you win, you have to stay vigilant and on guard or they’ll come back.
It’s not demon-possessing black magic. There’s nothing mystical about it. It’s simply sociology, weaponized. It’s strategy and tactics. It’s a workshop of tools that, isolated, as Ymarsakar points out, are familiar from a number of competitive fields. Fundamentally, participatory politics – the activist game – are competition. Be the master of your tools. Persistence and repetition are among the tools.
It’s Marxist-method – not Marxist – to distinguish the ideology from the basic method that’s long been decoupled from the original ideology and is available for any collective movement to advocate any cause in the social competition.
I’ll add to Neo’s summary a key point I make that she left out: the Right should stop passing the buck to the GOP and blaming the GOP for tasks that belong primarily to the Right, not the GOP. Politics are downstream of culture, which is another way of saying electoral politics are subsumed by participatory politics.
The GOP can and should fairly be held accountable for countering the Democrats, but in the broader spectrum surrounding, initiating, and influencing electoral politics, the Right must counter the Left. If the Right does its part seizing social nodes, the GOP will or at least should follow by doing its part in the newly reformed social cultural/political ecosystem.
If for some reason that I don’t foresee, Republicans refuse to follow suit, then by the same process, the Right will have acquired the power to regulate the GOP in the way that the Left regulates the Democrats.
Again, the alt-Right is picking up the game. On the other side, ‘moderate’ liberals have already fallen to the activism of the Left. If the mainstream conservatives of the Right continue refusing to play the game in earnest, then they will be made obsolete, regardless of whether their ideas are better for America than the ideas of the Left and the alt-Right.