The following are notes from a secretly taped lecture that did not take place, if you know what I mean. The presenter Marxist Tactician explains the very successful tactics of the political left, using current issues as examples.
Additionally, Marxist Tactician appears throughout this website on various pages.
If the voice of the opposition is heard, the people might agree, and we may lose their support. This concept underlies our overall strategy and is accomplished in various ways, such as keeping conservative speakers off campus, and demonizing members of the opposition.
We have had great success on college campuses, where Conservative speakers have been effectively banned. Notable are our comrades at Rutgers who protested so effectively that George Bush’s former advisor Condoleezza Rice was uninvited as commencement speaker. It was an important victory, because the last thing we want is students hearing a Conservative perspective from a woman of color — it contradicts our narrative of oppression and the need of government to fix everything. [suggested search terms: conservative, campus, speakers]
Demonize the opposition to avoid any real discussion of the issues.
Rather than discuss the issues (where opinions might differ), you will generally garner more support by attacking the opposition. For example, we have labeled anyone who disagrees with Obama as a racist. This label is so charged that it has given our beloved leader a built-in immunity from any criticism or opposition, and has been an important tool to further our agenda.
With a progressive Black president, it’s been too easy, so a more illustrative example is in order:
We know that many young white voters oppose affirmative action — they find it unfair that an oppressed minority with a lower GPA and test scores can gain admission in medical school over their privileged white asses.
So to maximize support from that demographic, we label anyone who opposes affirmative action as a “racist” or accuse them of “wanting to keep the black man down.” Not everyone is going to buy into this (especially those personally affected), but when they try to speak out, we shout them down, to prevent anyone else from possibly agreeing.
Demonize (repeat, and repeat, and repeat …).
If you repeat a label enough times, it becomes such a reality to the public, they don’t even look to the underlying truth. This is why the general public thinks the Tea Party is extremist, though most don’t know its underlying beliefs.
To do this effectively, it is useful to create an echo chamber, by issuing talking points to all comrades, including politicians and journalists, so that a diversity of voices repeats and repeats and repeats the label, embedding it in the mind of the public.
In the case of the Tea Party, we were fortunate to have further support by the Washington establishment GOP.
Control the language.
Our feminist comrades have successfully used this technique in creating outrage with their claim that an astounding number (20 to 25%) of women are victims of sexual assault on college campuses.
They cleverly defined sexual assault to include: a man open-mouth kissing a woman (consensually), reaching over and touching one of her breasts over her shirt and bra, but without first expressly asking (and receiving affirmative) permission to do so.
We know a lot of people would not consider that scenario to constitute “sexual assault,” but keep in mind that most people are not going to “read the fine print” of the accusation.
Should anyone question or speak out about this broad definition (or try to defend the now-deemed sexual predator), we label them a sexist and part of the war on women. It puts them on the defensive, and when they try to explain themselves, we drown out their voice so nobody gets to hear. Thus, we create an immunity to criticism that gives us great political power and successful fund-raising. Good work, comrades.
Ac-cen-tu-ate the Negative.
Given that demonizing an opponent can keep his views from being heard, comrades must make a special effort to find negatives about the opposition, commonly called “opposition research”. In its highest form, we fine-comb the target’s past, interview friends and associates, search the web, and follow the target with an audio recorder to catch just one in-artfully spoken statement that then can be the basis for an attack.
It need not be blatantly negative, but something that can be taken out of context or that can be construed negatively. For example, we got a spy into a private meeting where Mitt Romney was discussing strategy with supporters, when Mr. Romney explained that they would never get votes from the 47% of the population who pay no taxes and benefit from government largess. From this, we were able to get our comrades in the press to cover this as Mitt being callous to the poor and low-income people. Some say this was crucial to our 2012 victory.
On the contrary, we must protect our leaders from similar scrutiny by hiding all potential negatives from their past, by scrubbing and hushing anyone who could say anything negative (by buying them off, giving them a job, threatening or killing them off like some say the Clintons had Vince Foster killed off).
Our greatest success was the total scrubbing of Obama’s life in college and law school, where we have hidden not just his grades but nearly all of his all friends or acquaintances.
“Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste”
(So says Former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, now mayor of one of the most murderous cities in the USA.)
When things come to a head, and something must be done to deal with an immediate crisis, it affords an opportunity to pass laws that would never be passed if people had time to read the bill before voting. Of course, it is good to have a prepared pre-written law to “solve” the crisis that also furthers our agenda (some say a draft of what became Obamacare was in a drawer for years before his election).
Advanced application of this principle includes creating a crisis, such as the 2014 child immigration border crisis. Of course, when you create a crisis, you can prepare for it, which gives you an advantage over your opposition. In this case, the Obama administration pre-contracted for buses to transport and disperse the children before anyone knew what was going on.
Crisis legislation also affords the opportunity to slip in some “pork” (unrelated to the crisis) to one’s political allies.
Use Procedures and Delays to Maintain Power.
Even if your seizure of power was overreaching and illegal, it takes your opposition a lot of time and money to reverse your actions. It takes over a year to get to the Supreme Court. Even if a criminal charge or regulatory violation has no merit, you can bankrupt a political opponent with the investigation and legal process.
Don’t Talk About the Underlying Facts.
Particularly in labor and wage disputes, it is often best to keep secret the substance of the disputes, such as the current wages and benefits. Public opinion will often be on the side of the workers until they find out that the workers are making for more than them, and have much better benefits. This is particularly true in strikes by public employee unions.
Remember the lesson of the 1981 air traffic control union strike, where public opinion turned against the strikers when their actual salaries ($20,462 to $49,229) were revealed to be higher than average wages at that time.
Play on the emotional attachment the public has for teachers, firemen and the police, and don’t reveal the actual numbers like existing salaries and benefits (like full salary pensions for teachers after only 20 years of service, or that firemen get paid to sleep). If the public knows the real numbers, we might lose their support. Obfuscate and deflect when speaking to the press, for example: “We cannot comment on the details of the pending negotiation.”