1/
Want to know how Woke activists take over buildings, smash windows, trash university campuses, and still have the press call them "non-violent"?
Well, as it turns out these are well trained activists using intelligent, highly developed tactics.
Here's a primer:
2/ First off: none of this is spontaneous.
IE: The protestors in the video going around have shields. (pic 1)
In 2020 we learned these shields can take hours to make and are made by volunteers working all day. You don't do that spontaneously. It takes planning. (pics 2 +3)
3/ Here's a thread on the shields used during the 2020 Portland protests. They are well built and are distributed to those wishing to engage in "direct action" (AKA violence and vandalism).
Not all shields are built like this, but this is typical:
4/ Another clue that this is all VERY well planned is the fact they tend to all have the same tent.
This is because the organizations that run and fund the protests purchase the tents in bulk and then give them to the protestors as needed.
Again, It is all VERY well planned.
5/ Further, these are NOT "student protests."
Lisa Fithian is a 63 year old professional protestor, not a student. She's planned protests for decades.
According to the NYPD 1/3 of the people arrested at Columbia, and most of the people arrested at the CCNY, were not students
6/ Now we need to understand the TACTICS that are being used here.
The first strategy is to put their target in a "decision dilemma." This is where they select a method of protest that leaves the person with no good options. No matter how the target reacts they look bad.
7/ As John Searle explained in his 1971 book "The Campus War," the strategy is to leave the University with no good options:
They either let the protestors take over, or call police and then students play victim and use the optics to look like sympathetic martyrs for the cause.
8/ The decision dilemma strategy is paired with: "the real action is your targets reaction." You use someone's reactions to your protest against them.
IE: Taking over a building. If the police arrest you, you film it and play the martyr. If they don't, you control the building
9/ Those two strategies are used hand in hand to create actions which activists can turn to their advantage.
When they do this correctly they can paint themselves as the sympathetic powerless underdogs even when they are the aggressors.
It's social and political jiu-jitsu
10/
This is performative, but not in "look good to your peers" kind of way.
The principle is "play to the audience that isn't there." Activists protesters want to LOOK good to the people on youtube or watching the news.
Activists want to LOOK like they are trying to change the minds of people they protest against, but that's just for show. They see their targets unrepentant evil doers that are just props in the drama they are staging.
This is awful.
12/ The point of the protest is not to change the mind of the people whose building they have taken over, the goal is to use the protest as a way of building social and political pressure against the people they are trying to make give it.
THAT is the goal.
13/ This next strategy is self-explanatory: "do the media's work for them."
This is where activists find press releases and film footage that make them look good get into the hands of sympathetic journalists. This explains a lot of what gets on TV beautifultrouble.org/toolbox/tool/d…
14/ So how do they do all this and still get sympathetic coverage?
The strategy is: "lead with sympathetic characters." It's EXACTLY what it sounds like. They put sympathetic people out front to garner sympathy and create the APPEARANCE of underdogs fighting against the powerful.
15/ This is why in the coverage of these protests you rarely see the images of smashed glass, trashed buildings, broken doors, and blood on the street, but you will often see pictures of the people below which are meant to make the protestors look sympathetic.
16/ The protestors have a highly developed theory of protest optics. They understand videos can be sliced and diced to tell any story, and the story that "resonates" with people most, wins. So they are intentional in trying to create moments on video that can go viral...
13/ That isn't to say they aren't also intentional in doing damage. They are. The book Black Bloc, White Riot: Anti-Globalization and the Genealogy of Dissent by author AK Thompson is the starting place for their theory of what counts as violence, and when violence is justified.
14/ Here is Alex Hundert writing is rabble defending "a diversity of tactics" which is a euphemism for allowing violence at protests. Hundert explicitly states a commitment to non-violence is "dogmatic" and "stifles debate" about which tactics to use. rabble.ca/political-acti…
15/ So the violence and vandalism at these protests is intentional. Where the elderly protestor is meant to win hearts, the black bloc is there to intimidate. If police react to the violence with arrests protestors claim the police "attacked students."
See how the game works?
16/ The point is that none of these protests are happening spontaneously.
These are well planned protests, using high level tactics that are given to people supported by a well organized protest infrastructure (where did you think the tents and shields came from?)
17/ These radical protestors have organized an infrastructure to, in their words, disrupt, dismantle, and deconstruct your society.
I don't want to scare any of you, I just want you to know what's happening because you can't push back against what you don't understand.
18/ Every single one of these protests operates according to a set of methodologies, principles and tactics and theories that have been created with the specific goal of allowing the radicals to gain social and political victories by creating and controlling the narrative.
19/ As @realchrisrufo points out, the conflict at Harvard is reaching a "decision point," but Harvard can't end the conflict without looking bad and damaging their own reputation.
This is the result of activist tactics applied perfectly against Harvard.
@realchrisrufo 20/
Do not underestimate the ability of radical leftist protestors to win the narrative battle, particularly since we have a media complex sympathetic to leftist causes.
The goal here is not to scare you, but to show you what's going on under the hood of these protests....
@realchrisrufo 21/
Beating woke activists means understanding their tactics are so you can anticipate them and respond in a way that is effective.
If universities had anticipated the Activist tactic "occupation" They would have known the goal was to put them in a "decision dillemma" (pic 2)
@realchrisrufo 22/
And the activists will explicitly tell us that these occupations are "well planned" (that's why I keep using that phrase" and that they want to expose the "power holders" (in this case universities) inability to enforce the rules.
That's literally the whole point...
@realchrisrufo 23/
Had universities known this they would have understood that the right move is to eject the encampments the minute they start. There was not way to negotiate with the protestors because, as the activists themselves tell us, negotiating is not the point. The point is to...
@realchrisrufo 24/
create a situation where the University has no good option and expose the university as weak, and then use that to extract concessions and make the university fold because they have ZERO good options.
Knowing that this is the strategy allows you avoid the trap by....
@realchrisrufo 25/
taking the PR hit and ejecting the protestors and tearing down the encampments on day 1. You're taking a PR hit no matter what, so take the hit day 1 and then ride it out. The longer the protests last, the bigger a story they become, so end it quick and kill the momentum...
@realchrisrufo 26/
Instead universities did not know the tactics, thought they could reason with the protestors or negotiate in good faith, and now they are in exactly yhe bind that @realchrisrufo lays out here:
@realchrisrufo 27/
Learn how the woke activists operate, learn how their tactics function, and learn how to respond accordingly when they seek to impose their will on you using these tactics.
Thanks for reading.
/fin
PS/
I recommended John Searle's "The Campus War: A Sympathetic Look at the University in Agony" to @JDHaltigan and he posted a number of screenshots from the book on his account. I used one of them in this thread, so many thanks to JD for that. :)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) created a DEI program focused on:
-Power, privilege, and oppression
-Understanding microaggressions
-Centering Native Voices in Atmospheric Sciences
-Knowledge that "does not come from science"
2/ The NCAR had two programs. The first was called UNIEON (which stands for "UCAR/NCAR Equity and Inclusion program"), and the second was a program they funded called "rising voices," which was about bringing "indigenous knowledge" into science.
And it's funded by tax dollars.
3/ The goal of the DEI program (UNIEON) was to bring DEI into the NCAR, and then get the participants to start implementing the DEI ideology via "Bystander intervention." That is, it invites people to insert themselves into other peoples social interactions in order to spread DEI
1/ If you want to understand influencer behavior, read Former WWE executive Eric Bischoffs' book "Controversy Creates Cash" about the inner workings of pro wrestling.
He said controversial things, regardless of morality, generates attention, creates buzz, and sells tickets.
2/ The title of the book comes from a chapter where he discussed bringing in Dennis Rodman for an event because Rodman was controversial and "controversy creates cash." Much of what is happening online, including the Charlie Kirk conspiracies, is driven by exactly this dynamic.
3/ While there is certainly more to it (parasocial relationships with influencers, foreign influencers, etc) one of the major factors that incentivizes outlandish claims and conspiracy theorizing is that the controversy generates attention, creates buzz, and drives engagement.
1/ There's a genre of woke-posting where they state their views as if they were talking to toddlers as a way of making their views look obvious (even kids get it!), grabbing moral authority (I'm the teacher!), and leveraging condescension to imply their opponents are beneath them
2/ These women are not actually trying to explain anything, the explanation is just a front for their condescending tone. The real goal is to "put you in your place" by treating you like a toddler so they can grab the social high-ground in the conversation
3/ The reason they do this is because by adopting the posture of a kindergarten teach it forces you fight through layers of snark, sarcasm, and condescending tone while being put in the social position of a child talking to a teacher.
Making the Friend/Enemy distinction the fundamental axis of politics is to reject the Aristotelian claim at the heart of western civilization that says politics is about human flourishing and pursuing the good, and to replace it with the political ideology of 3rd world tribalism.
If you want The West to turn into Somalia, tell people that the fundamental distinction all political motives and actions revolve around is "who is on my team and who isn't," and the goal is to reward your friends while harming enemies.
Cause that's how Somalia works
There are a whole lot of people running around acting like "friend/enemy" is some kind of deep idea, or profound simplification of politics, when in fact it's little more than the rejection of the grand political tradition of western civilization in favor do 3rd world tribalism.
2/ They don't do land acknowledgements and such in order to make my son feel unwelcome, they are just applying the things they were taught in college about "reconciliation." For the most part, these teachers mean well and are really trying their best, but because of the skew...
3/ of the teacher toward being both progressive and toward being women, the result is a very feminine coded social justice oriented environment across the education system. The result is that the environment is terrific for little girls, but can be difficult for little boys...
People coming from third world nations to advanced western nations bring their ideas about of how society works with them.
So they don't see electoral politics as a tool for ensuring proper governance, they see it as a way to get goodies for their clan and win tribal conflicts
This isn't because those people are evil, stupid—it's because in third world nations the primary use of politics really is for winners to give goodies to their friends and settle scores with their enemies.
The competent management of infrastructure and services is secondary.
So, rather then ask "how can I govern in a way that is best for the health of the nation as a whole, and whst is the best way to ensure competent management of the advanced systems that make society work?" The third worlder asks "how can I reward my friends and harm my enemies?"