Tuesday, June 12, 2018

The Red Tactic


Have you ever heard of the Red Tactic?  I learned about it while working for the IWW back in Chicago, and with its century-and-more history, the IWW should know. 

It's called the Red Tactic because it was invented by the hard-core communists, who wanted to rule the world as devoutly as the Jihadists do.  It consisted of making a social/political/economic system worse in order to make people desperate, so as to drive the people to revolution -- which, of course, their communist manipulators would steer in the proper direction.  The fact that this tactic usually didn't work, revolutions being notoriously difficult to manipulate, didn't stop its devotees from repeatedly trying it.  Possibly the righteous excuse for nasty behavior was irresistible.

The problem is that tactics are neutral, and anyone who understands them can use them -- or elaborate on them -- so that it can become difficult if not impossible to tell just who is using the tactic, and for what ultimate end.  Nonetheless, it's possible to recognize the tactic when you see it.

Looking at the "immigration problem" in Europe right now, I can't see it as anything else.

The European Union was formed in 1993, shortly after the collapse of the USSR, pretty obviously to forge all of Europe into a single country/empire/hegemony to balance the political/economic power of the US.  This implies that our European allies had a rather cynical attitude toward us, and were not necessarily our friends.  This is supported by the interesting tariffs that the EU applied to American goods, while busily reducing tariffs, and unifying currency, among themselves. 

Note particularly what the countries of the EU did next.  Those that didn't already have exceedingly strict gun-control laws, if not outright bans on civilian gun ownership, proceeded to pass them.  Then, after 9/11/2001, the US began conducting its confused and clumsy war on the Arab states.  Various allies in the EU cheered us on at first, but soon lost interest -- probably due to our inability or unwillingness to fight the war to a clear conclusion by conquering the Arab states outright -- and started making their own policy with the Arabs.  Their ultimate purpose is indeed the question.

What they did next was, apparently, to sell out to the Jihadists.  They opened their doors to "Syrian" refugees from all over the middle east and northern Africa, even as US troops were thrashing Jihadist armies in those countries.  Under the excuse of "compassion" and getting more cheap laborers to replace their own aging and shrinking populations, they welcomed in hordes of military-age Muslim males, and a few Muslim families, and a disturbing number of fundamentalist Muslim imams -- making little to no effort to discover which of them had connections to the Jihadist armies, let alone determine which of those "refugees" were willing to "assimilate", or even work for a living.  They did not consult their own populations before taking in these hordes, and -- having been disarmed -- their citizens could do little to effectively complain. 

Anyone who had studied Arab culture or history, or the Koran, could have predicted what would happen.  The refugees didn't assimilate but strove mightily to take over.  They avoided taking any kind of jobs, but demanded extensive amounts of Welfare -- the jizya, you know.  They also demanded that their host countries adapt their cultures to keep from "offending" the invaders.  The crime-rate, particularly rape -- of children as well as women -- skyrocketed, and when the victims identified their attackers as "foreigners", the police deftly avoided making any such "Islamophobic" identifications.  The number of Arab terrorist attacks climbed likewise.  So did public anti-semitism and mainstream-media anti-Israel propaganda.  Neighborhoods and whole cities were taken over by the "refugees", who boast openly that in 20 years they'll take over completely. 

It didn't help that various countries in Europe found their economies collapsing under the burden of excessive Socialistic regulations and taxation, especially with their Welfare systems overloaded by the non-taxpaying/tax-absorbing hordes of refugees. 

Naturally, the native citizens were perturbed by this -- but found no support or sympathy from their own Liberal-to-Socialist governments.  If anything, their governments have ordered the police to silence all complaint, in fact to spend more time hunting out and punishing "Islamophobia" than solving and punishing real crimes. 

Just as naturally, the resistance is growing.  The UK, in the famous "Brexit" vote, withdrew from the EU entirely, though it did nothing about its "refugee problem".  Other countries, notably those to the eastern side of Europe, refused to take in any more "refugees" -- and a few of them have begun efforts to round up and throw out the ones already there.  Others have begun investigating and deporting particularly active imams, closing down proven Jihadist mosques, ordering their police to actively investigate crimes by "refugees" and deporting any convicted. 

Most recently, when the UK government arrested-tried-convicted-and-jailed, in 13 hours flat, a public complainer -- Tommy Robinson -- the public exploded in protests.  22,000 Britons protested in London and clashed noisily with police.  The political party Robinson supports, which the sitting government calls "right-wing", has gained enough followers that they just might win the majority at the next election.

In short, the countries of the EU are turning politically right-wing and anti-Muslim from the roots up, as a result of the incredibly stupid policies of their own -- basically Socialistic -- governments.  It's hard to see how those governments could have been so suicidally stupid...

...Unless they intended this from the beginning.

As I said, one doesn't have to be a Red to use the Red Tactic -- only devoted and patient.

--Leslie <;)))><  )O(                     

6 comments:

Paradoctor said...

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by folly or incapacity. Beware the illusion of control.

For instance, I'd attribute the Red Tactic to the Trumpists, but they lack the necessary competence.

My analogy for Trump is the Shadows of the series Babylon 5; their method was to sow chaos, to weed out the weak, the foolish and the unlucky. But I'm not sure if Trump is Londo or Cartagia. (He's _not_ Morden.)

Leslie Fish said...

I've noticed that Trump is ruining his own fundie/Conservative followers at a hellacious rate. F'rinstance, who would have known that Giuliani was *that* much of an idiot before Trump brought him in and turned him loose? By the time Trump is out of office, there won't be a major Republican left standing to run for office!

At the same time, he's teasing the Democrats into overstepping themselves, saying outrageous stuff (yes, Maher came right out and said that he wanted to see a major economic depression just to discredit Trump -- without a second thought about how many Americans would suffer seriously in a new Depression). More, in their frantic attempt to increase gun control, a lot of Dems have said -- repeatedly, in public -- that "it's time to get rid of the 2nd Amendment". Think how popular *that* idea is among the majority of Americans! It's just possible that by the time they get rid of Trump, the Dems may have discredited themselves so thoroughly that nobody will want to vote for them, either.

Who will that leave? Well, here in AZ, the number of registered Libertarians and independents is greater than the number of registered Repubs and Dems combined.

Is it Trump who's using the Red Tactic here in the US?

Alchemystudiosink said...

Well, I purpose this question though myself. What happens when people using the red tactic are exposed or people end up rebelling against it?

I think the result might be similar to a successfully ran Red Tactic.

I've got a theory that someone started to do the red tactics, particularly with the EU, possibly to do a 'bloodless' war. Basically something where you slowly erode countries from the inside out, to take them over without war ever being declared.

But Alternative Media began running and exposing things that the EU wanted to remain hidden. Which is of course starting the Barbra Strysand effect when they bar reporters from reporting on certain cases and then arrest people who do.

Daniel said...

I agree with not overestimating the competence of the European political classes. That being said, a substantial proportion of those political classes is anything but friendly to immigrants (remember Sarkozy?), or is willing to adjust its positions accordingly if the situation arises. Immigration is not a problem for the elites; neither is a rise in right-wing, anti-immigration sentiment. If need be, the ruling "socialists" (in name only, at least if you compare them to what was understood by a socialist in the same countries a hundred years ago) would just rebrand themselves as "nationalists" and nick the far right's slogans and some of their policies, just as their predecessors had selectively robbed the far left.

Re: gun control, true as far as I know, but with the notable exception of Czechia.

Daniel said...

By the way - which party does Tommy Robinson support now? If it is UKIP then I really wouldn't bet on them winning. The air has largely gone out of them; but other non-mainstream right-wing parties are doing even worse.

What I do foresee, throughout Western Europe, is centrist/centre-right parties that are currently vaguely multicultural and pro-immigration drifting towards some imitation of national conservatism or at least a more limited immigration skepticism, over the next few years. This is not an absolute prediction but I think it is a reasonably likely scenario. The parties of the far right have low ceilings and limited staying power there, except *maybe* in France. But their ideas are easily placed into the mainstream of politics by those who are better connected and better able to play that game.

Leslie Fish said...

I confess I can't keep track of European political parties; with a few exceptions, they seem to change with the weather. There may or may not be any particular party that offers what the people want on the subjects of immigration, freedom of speech, and even weapons, but I suspect that the EU countries had better come up with some soon.