You can define yourself as conservative, libertarian (big or small “l”), neo-reactionary, republican (big or small “r”), or use another term that puts you somewhere on “the right”.  You might even be to the left on most issues but reject feminism.  You can be a traditionalist Christian or secular Objectivist.

But to our adversaries, these labels matter little.  We’re all full of hate, all either power-hungry bastards that like it when poor people suffer or idiots who “cling to guns or religion“.  You haven’t rationally concluded after hours of investigation that decent men are getting screwed, you’re just afraid of losing your WHAM (white heterosexual able-bodied male) privilege.

You’re the enemy.  We’re categorized not according to our specific views on certain issues but on whether or not we’re formidable.  The Koch brothers support gay marriage, but their anti-Obamacare ads seem to be working. so they must be demonized.  Socially liberal but in support of free markets?  Not good enough.  Socialistic in your economics but still pro-life?  Not good enough.

Yes, they’ll tactically retreat, encourage primary voters to vote for the most milquetoast candidate possible, only to treat Mr. Milquetoast the exact same way they’d treat a genuine reactionary after they get the nomination.

We’ve been framed as mean, which puts us into a viciously effective bind.  Be too critical and fall directly into the frame of bitter white-guy who feeds on hate, don’t be critical enough and come across as wimpy, uninspiring, utterly devoid of the alpha traits people seek in a leader.

Some of us don’t care that we’re considered mean and say what we want to say exactly the way we want to say it.  Although this approach can inspire those of us who already agree, it turns off the ignorant who associate everything we stand for with abject cruelty.

Others care too much about the mean-frame.  We water down our message so much we don’t even appear to have one, so worried about how our ideas will be received by others that we become willing to sacrifice our beliefs on the altar of public opinion.

Neither approach works, at least not enough.  The former is more effective than the latter, but it can and does frighten away lots of people who could be on our side.

We’ve got to attack but be smart about it.

Although a Canadian reactionary himself, Free Northerner recently described how he would orchestrate a conservative resurgence here in the States.  I could quibble with some of the details, but he demonstrates some great political instincts.  He knows the importance of aggression and instilling fear into one’s enemies.

He’s correct about his assertions regarding “escalation dominance”.  However, I would argue that our most urgent deficiencies in this regard relate more to our rhetorical inability to “escalate” and less with our willingness to use force.  Yes, both are important.  Nevertheless, thus far our political battles are still fought with words:  bureaucratic directives, court decisions, laws nobody reads, votes, political ads, backroom deals, etc.  Yes, guns are always lurking just beneath the surface whenever government is involved with anything.  Still, we’re not seeing the National Guards of various states lined up against the Army.  Yet.  (We’ll see how that Nevada standoff goes.)

Ignorant and fickle as it is, public opinion still counts for something.  Neither side is yet willing to use the force they’d like because both believe that doing so in the wrong way would push public opinion in the opposite direction.

We’re in the midst of a Cold Civil War, and as long as it’s still “Cold” our weapons of choice are verbal, not military.

Nevertheless, Free Northerner’s basic premise is fundamentally correct in that during our current battles, the left’s “escalation dominance” is substantial.  Is Harry Reid afraid to accuse private American citizens of “un-American activity” or launch whatever accusation might pop into his head about Mitt Romney’s taxes from the Senate floor?  Were they even hesitant to accuse Romney of causing a woman to die of cancer?

They throw out the nastiest attack imaginable, and the response is some variation of “they shouldn’t say that.”  They throw a sucker-punch, and the response is just to claim it shouldn’t have been thrown.  Sometimes the punches are blocked, but even if they are, there’s no disincentive to try again (and again, and again…).  After all, if the worst that’s going to happen is some butt-hurt whining about how mean you are, why the hell wouldn’t you?

Why do they accuse us (and by “us” I mean everybody from soft-right GOP squishes to principled libertarians, conservatives, and neo-reactionaries) of being all sorts of horribly ugly inhuman monsters?  Because it works.  Why does it work?  Because if you insult somebody to their face, and their response is to get defensive, it frames you as the alpha.  You have no fear, and your opponent is weak.

So why not return the favor?  Throw out whatever spurious accusations that might possibly stick, be alpha ourselves?

First, although I think we’ve got to get uglier than we’ve gotten, I believe that certain moral standards must be upheld.  Ethical behavior is not necessarily detrimental or restrictive.  On the contrary it can be a powerful weapon, if it’s framed properly. (But that’s for another post.  For now, I’ll merely assert that I think we can still make loads of progress while maintaining certain standards, and I also reject the mistaken notion that moral=wimpy.)

Second, as I described above, we’ve been framed as mean, so whenever we attack it plays perfectly into their frame.  The media helps with this immeasurably, doing no better to mediate our political discourse than a referee in the WWE.

Yet unless we learn how to achieve “escalation dominance” rhetorically, soon we’ll have to rely on it in the military sense that Free Northerner describes.

In future posts, I’ll elaborate on how to accomplish this in both how we appeal to the masses and for individuals we know in our daily lives.  Some will never be persuaded, but others actually can be if we’re smart about how we present ourselves.

When I discuss how to spread our ideas to the general public, I’ll be referring to Free Northerner’s ideas, some of which fit perfectly into the framework I advocate.

But whether constructing an advocacy campaign or getting your buddy to swallow the red pill, certain rhetorical principles always apply.  Framing (the correct mix of alpha dominance and more humanizing beta traits), disarming your opponent’s frame, claiming the moral high ground, blocking their blows, and inflicting a few of your own.

Sometimes, after winning a bout, the correct response will be to rub it in, to ensure that your opponent is genuinely afraid of attempting another attack.  Other times, you’ll want to be magnanimous (something you can only be from a position of power) and invite the vanquished to re-engage you, only this time in a dialectical quest for Truth, not some bullshit rhetoric war to see who’s got the most clever one-liners.

You can use rhetoric alone to win a temporary ally (or frighten off an enemy), but only through dialectic can we guarantee that they won’t change their mind back the minute they see some cute political ad.

It’s disheartening to observe how effective the forces of lies have framed our politics and culture.  However, when I observe how anemic the forces of decency have been thus far in response, it gives me hope.  Perhaps if we adopt a strategy that isn’t quite so moronic we’ll actually have a decent shot.

This entry was posted in Alpha, Game, Politics, Rhetoric. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Escalation

  1. Pingback: Escalation |

  2. Eric says:

    You ought to gather *off-line* the like-minded red pill bloggers who have advocated for activism (yourself, Spearhead, runsonmagic, who else?). Continue issuing calls for action, but don’t give a running commentary on-line of the off-line brainstorming sessions.

    Don’t charge the gates right away, prematurely. Combine your brains, instead. Together – talk. Ask questions and answer them. Learn the how, what, why of activism. Learn the theory and how-to. Most importantly, learn to *think* like activists (aka community organizers). Identify and map out the problems. Identify and map out the solutions. Start with broad strokes. Break them down to parts. Start with the long-term, big-picture goals and work backwards to fill in the steps. Make a plan, knowing it will change when it interacts with reality.

    You don’t need to have everything on-line at the start. In fact, many of the things – especially necessary persons – you’ll need at later stages will be acquired in the course of campaigning. As Sun Tzu said, opportunities multiply as they are seized.

    Apply when ready. Be smart and be aggressive. Think globally, act locally. Don’t try to swallow the whole pie in one bite. I suggest making manageable test runs in local community causes to set up operations and tactics, techniques, and procedures. Harvest your local experience as building blocks. Grow from there. Crawl, walk, run. You will surprise yourself with unexpected successes, you’ll be demoralized with failures when expecting success, you will make mistakes, you will disagree with comrades. But you will learn. And grow.

    • Martel says:

      You know your stuff. Thanks for this and your previous comments.

      I’ll be getting with some of the folks you mention soon, and I’ve also got an idea for some rhetorical training I’ll be implementing. Another reader is also working on something for gun control I might get involved in.

      It’s time we start having a more tangible impact.

      • Eric says:

        Been there, done that.

        On that point, don’t overlook conventional-seeming liberals with valuable skills who are put off by the cultural takeover of the Left and primed for a blue pill to red pill conversion. As you know, ‘born-again’ red-pillers can be zealous. Their kind of passion is rocket fuel. (Handle with care, though, because the explosive passion that fuels a social movement is volatile and can implode if mismanaged.)

        Remember, “Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics.” Actually, professionals study tactics and all aspects of competition, not just logistics, but you get the point.

        Logistically, it won’t be a fair contest. The leftists across from you will be operating from an established infrastructure with advantages built over decades. That’s as it should be: the Left worked for it and earned their upper hand.

        Don’t be too discouraged, though. Ad hoc improvisation, on-the-job training, and growth are parts of the package. Remind yourself that activism is designed to empower the insurgent in an asymmetrical competition. Moreover, you can thank the Left for having done the heavy-lifting to program American society’s ‘cathedral’ to respond to activism. You only need to push the buttons of the social cues that have been pre-set by the Left. You don’t need to repeat the Left’s labor over decades, perhaps centuries, of inventing and implanting activist social cues throughout our society. You get to innovate fresh with proven activist ‘off-the-shelf tech’ in a social-cultural setting already programmed for activism.

  3. Eric says:

    As far as an opportunity-rich local community to begin making the switch to real-world activist action, I suggest NYC. Mayor de Blasio’s sweeping ‘progressive’ agenda offers a tailor-made opportunity to build a counter social movement. The narrative writes itself. The cultural-ideological competition will be unambiguous and stark in NYC. The more aggressive that de Blasio is with his agenda, the better you’ll be able to recruit an opposition there, and the people you can recruit in NYC are high-skilled and think globally. As a start point for a larger social movement, as the saying goes, if you can make it in the City, you can make it anywhere.

  4. peregrinejohn says:

    This is exactly the sort of analysis and conversation I’ve been trying to gin up a few places, on- and offline, for a couple years now. Bring it on, my friend. It could be that the old idiocy of claiming the high road and acting the doormat is coming to an end, patience being finite after all.

    Between amygdala hijacking, amygdala avoidance, and escalation dominance, perhaps a future of some non-Mad-Max variety might be had after all.

    • Martel says:

      I think the knowledge of feminine psychology explored by the manosphere may be the last piece of the puzzle we need to make stuff happen. There’s been Machievelli, Alinsky, and others who’ve delved pretty deeply, but we understand females better than anyone, and females are what’s driving us straight to hell.

      Obviously, we’ve got to put those puzzle pieces together, but I think we might have the brains to make it happen.

      The obsese lady has not yet sung.

      • Mina says:

        Right. Notice that the primary makeup of the organizations fighting to disarm everyone are women. That’s why fighting them should be easy: Just use Game. 🙂 it can still work, even on a grand scale because at the end of the day, much as the Left wants to use the Institutions to bash everyone’s heads in most decisions are made by real people being influenced by other real people. Once we break down and infiltrate their Institutions (i.e. the herd) we can win. Their power is only in numbers. Take that away and they have nothing.

  5. Joe Katzman says:

    Martel, I agree that you do have some pieces of the puzzle. And having a get-together with whomever is probably very useful.

    On the other hand, there’s a vast chasm in front of you. Wouldn’t it make sense to look for a pre-existing peaceful faith-based model that has been proven to work very effectively, in practice, against a modern Deep State apparatus? Sure would fill in a lot of blanks, wouldn’t it? So, I give you 2 words. My gift:

    Fethullah Gulen.

    You’re welcome.

  6. Eric says:

    Another red-pill blogger advocating for activism:

  7. Paladin Justice says:

    Reblogged this on saboteur365 and commented:
    Saboteurs, Alpha has precisely identified one of the weapons our enemies use against us. He has also shown how to turn it around and use it against them. This is war, even if only a cold war, and we are fighting behind enemy lines. Let’s do the most damage we can by using all the weapons at our disposal, as suggested by Alpha. I’m adding a link to his website in my blogroll.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s