This post is also available in: Deutsch
From what I’ve noticed, [S] appears to feast on [G]’s rage against him. He knows [G]’s rage is, for now, largely impotent, and it compels [S] to ever greater excesses of ostentatious anti-[G]ism. [G]’s rage justifies [S]’s taunts, in [S]’s mind.
But mockery has a different effect, pushing [S] to implode and sputter with incoherent rage.
This is why mockery is now targeted by Big Tribal for censorship and expulsion. It’s a winning tactic for [G]’s side in this protracted war, and [S]’s only response to it is heavy-handed suppression.
The suppression is what will advance the propaganda war to its open battlefield, where clarity will bring objectives into focus.
For this reason, i’m a big advocate of mockery, which has the power to settle our ancient score in the medium which our enemy has hubristically called his own.
As a reader writes,
When Saul Alinsky’s very own tactics are turned against them, they’re not quite sure what to do.
Steal the enemy’s best tactics and meld them with our best tactics for a winning long-term strategy.
Smash Islamophobia adds,
Yes. Never get angry, never show “hate” — always mock and condescend.
The [S] NEEDS stereotypical “anti-[S]ism” to feed his paranoia and to drive his tr1be’s ethnic cohesion.
Don’t give it to him.
True…for now. But there is a time and context to show hate, to let the enemy — as well as our allies! — know, when it’s maximally advantageous, that it isn’t all fun and games, and the righteous fury is in us, emboldening and steeling our hearts.
A mockery which rests on a foundation of moral certitude is nearly unanswerable.