How To Nip A Totalitarian Agenda In The Bud Before It Is Too Late

If your political foe calls you a great Satan, understand that unless you match or exceed their rhetoric, the public will tend to think the more sensationalist claims are true. Moreover, if your foe calls you a great Satan and this is patently false, then take this both as projection and equate this to murderous intent.

(Note: some measure of this is always evident at almost all times, but what is at issue here is the pervasiveness, loudness, and sensationalism of such claims and rheorical assaults aimed at delegitimization and even criminalization of any substantial part of your movement.)

The public gravitate toward epic batttles between implacable foes, not tame debates in response to vicious attacks by the other side.

Lopsided battles in which one side tries to be polite to one who is being violent and beyond the pale hold little interest. The assumption is that the louder and more violent must necessarily be right because average people would never make such outlandish claims and act so reprehensible without cause.

Hence to perhaps over-quoted bit about “the big lie”, telling it loudly and repeatedly until it is believed.

If the Ukes had not been so vicious and violent in their response to the Orc invasion out of Russia and Byelorus, for instance, the general public would have lost interest. Nobody adores a weakling. But notice, the Ukes have only done limited attacks on the Russian homeland itself for fears of escalating this into a nuclear war.

In politics, of course, the term “violent” is not literal. It is a spirit and energy. Like where it says it the Sacred text: the Kingdom of God suffers violence and the violent take it by force. When one side demonizes over the top, the only response is to return the favor in spades, assuming all their demonizations are projection and represent intent.

To drive this point home: it is ALWAYS reasonable to assume that whatever lies are used to defame your side are a projection of the true character and intent of the other side. When the other party openly deems any part of your movement traitors or something like that, then dialog must end and peaceful street actions must begin in a visible way that forces the public to choose a side.

Abandon any notion that any attack on perhaps a less seemly element of your movement is not actually a precursor to a general attack on the totality of your movement.

Once matters go to a stage where “legal” devices, abuses of power, are targeting individuals and using sensationalist claims and hyperbolic exaggeration to actually raid homes and arrest people, the response must be to assume all of your side are in the crosshairs. This is the kind of dangerous measures that actually lead to real violence when the organs of power come with guns to harrass or even imprison their opponents.

The political party or movement that cannot mass people for protests and civil disobedience to protect its own members, even those it may not heartily embrace, will soon face extinction. Illegal abuses of power targeting a few people who may be skirting the edge of propriety but who have not substantively broken the law, must be deemed an illegal persecution of the whole movement.

The only response would include protests, mass demonstrations, and even crippling work stoppages aimed at causing as much of a OR nightmare and and as much economic pain as possible on the oppressive party. But a peaceful albeit overwhelming response is needed with the aim of deescalation: using violence can tip things over the edge and lead to a lose-lose scenario for your entire country.

Essentially, match and exceed their rhetoric, or accusations, understanding that it is reasonable to assume the worst lying smears are actual projection and represent serious mal intent. But do not escalate with physical violence when peaceful demonstrations and/or work stoppages can be availed.