Guerilla Warfare Versus Messaging (whatever)
submitted by prototype to whatever 2 months ago
5 comments
The key to understanding guerilla warfare is this: for the guerilla, lets say 'you', it comes down to *only you*. No matter who dies, no matter how loyal or effective a second you have, no matter how sure things will go on without you, you have to be the last man standing, you have to survive, to be a fixed point for everyone else.
I really hate the cuban communists something fierce, but I always learn from enemies. If you read stories of che, actual stories (not the puff piece bullshit their regime put out lionizing him), he ran from countless battles, even abandoned people.
Because, like all guerillas, communist and noncommunist alike, he understood: you can't win if you're dead. You hit em, hit em hard, hit em fast, and get out. You fight the battles you can win and identify and avoid the individual fights you can't win. You cut losses wherever you have to, sort of like throwing luggage over board to keep an overloaded plane from crashing. The goal is to survive longer than the regime, to outrun them so to speak, while throwing sandbags on their back with every ambush.
Obligatory disclaimer though, I don't recommend anyone uses actual violence of course, nor break the law. Theres plenty of run way at this time for tactics and strategies within the scope of peaceful action and lawfare.
What else can you do?
Talk to people. No really. We need to have a national conversation about what to do with the federal regime. Use these words when talking to others, especially when they ask "well what can we do? Whats the plan?" You respond with "we need to have a national conversation about how to resist the unelected/illegitimate federal government."
If they press on the issue, or suggest anything concrete, you redirect to "well it all starts by spreading the word. We have to have people talking about this. About what to do."
And just repeat for any challenge. What you want is as many people in the state of mind specifically asking "well what do we do?"
Because once you do, they've already skipped past the "should we do something?" stage, thats been short-circuited. Action is thus a foregone conclusion once you get someone into that frame of mind.
So it is, pardon the candor, fucking critical to get AS MANY people as possible in that exact same of mind. What you do is flood the zone with this, "we need to start talking to people. get the word out. We need to have a conversation about how to resist an out of control government."
Verbatim. Word for word.
You can add the peaceful/lawabiding disclaimer like I do, or not, but its probably a good idea fwiw.
This practice, of getting people to spread a message that spreads to others, as a strategy is called the "groundswell effect", and is necessary to prepare the proper groundwork for an effective mass movement and recruitment phase.
Prepare the ground correctly, with a big enough push, and no amount of misdirection, redirection, appointed leaders, or astroturfed 'out of the blue' "organic" leaders like so much of the alt right, no amount of them can divide it. It's why for example, in the area of politics, the tea party, rather than being destroyed, had to be absorbed by the right half of the regime's uniparty.
It was the only thing they could do. I think the long term strategy is to repeat this process over and over again, tea party -> absorbed, maga -> absorbed, civic nationalism -> absorbed, and by so doing it effectively splinter the u.s. government politically, but I'm going off on a tangent.
Likewise, I've just highlighted the application of the groundswell effect to politics as an example, but it can be used for any sort of campaign, social, political, religious, or any other domain.
Talk groups, prayer groups, meeting in member's houses as private discussion groups, barbecues, group-event meets, parking-lot meets, anything that 1. gets people face-to-face, 2. gets them to hear the necessary message, 3. recruits them to spread the message.
Once that becomes widespread, the regime sees writing is on the wall, and has to either double down significantly enough that it provokes an organized response from the american public, or else capitulate. And if it capitulates, overnight its seen as a paper tiger and any and all mandates it and the institutions pass become void and unenforceable. The ability to project fear, authority, and control vanishes.
It's why you see so many shills come in "that can never work!", "we need a PLAN!", "oh so you think you're in charge?", "don't tell us what to do!" etc, when people start to discuss any of this. The tactics and speechs they ridicule is the tactics and speech they are afraid of. Why? Because those are what will be most effective against them.
Start in everyday life with "we need to spread the word about how to limit/stop the unelected/illegitimate government."
And "we need to have a national conversation."
