Newton’s First Law states, roughly, that an object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state until a force is applied to that object. Newton’s Third Law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Obviously, these hard-and-fast statements apply only in the realm of Newtonian physics, at least, when taken in their strictest senses. However, there is an analogy (possibly with a philosophical point, which I won’t focus on here) between Newton’s First and Third Laws and group psychology. I shall refer to these as Fire’s First and Second Laws of Political Trolling (patent pending, except it’s not) :
- A group of people in a state of uniform ideology motion tends to remain in that state until acted upon by an outside influence.
- For every action with force exceeding a certain threshold, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is called the Threshold of Backlash.
“Ideological motion” here means that a group of people is heading in a certain direction, and that their beliefs are changing at a certain rate, that is, with a certain “velocity” (to use another analogy from physics). For example, the Left tends to head in the direction of “progress” (read: entropy/degeneracy), with each new generation more radical than the last. They manage to drag the rest of society with them because the velocity of radicalization is just below the threshold where people notice it and react negatively, so we all get pulled along behind them.
This brings me to the second law, which is that movements in human society, whether artistic or political or whatever, tend to keep going in whatever direction they’re going until they either hit some kind of barrier (e.g. people getting bored with one artistic movement and going on to another) or are re-directed by an outside force. The reason that the velocity of radicalization must remain low is to avoid rising above the threshold where it engenders a backlash, per Forest Fire’s Second Law of Political Trolling.
The conservative strategy over the past ~400 years has been to dig our heels in and try to slow down the Left until they run out of energy. This, however, only incenses them more. One thing we have not attempted (for some reason) is pushing the Left’s radicalization velocity above the threshhold of backlash. If we can manage to do that, then we are certain to win.
The reason we are certain to win is that the Left is inherently passive. It is a fact that (non-revolutionary) Leftist movements work like passive aggressive individuals: constantly agitate to get what you want, but do so subtly enough to have plausible deniability so that you can play the victim when someone counterattacks. Digging our heels in doesn’t work here because the Left can always whine about how we’re being mean to them. But what if we could push the Left into full-on aggression through an increase in the radicalization velocity – enough to force a head-on confrontation? In that case, we win! It is a fact that, outside of a full-on Marxist revolution, the Left cannot win a head-on political confrontation when the option of being passive-aggressive has been removed. Remove the political correctness that hobbles us, and we’ll eat them alive in the media and at the debating table. There are three principle methods of doing this.
The first method is to use false flags and deception to apply subtle pressure to the Left to raise the radicalization rate. We can’t just bust in and start saying ridiculous stuff that sounds like a parody of what they’re actually saying, like alt-right Stephen Colberts, of course, but a little subtlety goes a long way.
The second method is to apply an extremely strong right-wing pressure to the Left, in order to cause a Leftist backlash that will cause them to radicalize more quickly; this faster radicalization should then push the Left’s radicalization velocity above the threshold of backlash, thus prompting a second backlash from the wider society. The situation should then escalate until a head-on political confrontation is reached, the politically correct gloves come off, and we crush them. However, there is a strong caveat: we must not agitate the Left in ways that agitate the wider society! This means that we must not use things like outright racism, slurs, wife-beating jokes, and so on, in public, since this will cause the rest of society to turn against and side with the liberals. Instead, we have to trigger them by mocking elements of the Left that are not held in high esteem by the rest of society, which will hopefully force a backlash from the Left which will be perceived by the wider society as an attack on everyone who isn’t a pink-haired cultural Marxist. We can always feign outright bigotry, of course, but not in places where it can be held up by our opponents as a justification for their behavior.
The third method is a synthesis where we use the first and second methods to pare away the more moderate elements of the Left in order to both increase the radicalization velocity of the movement as a whole and convert moderates to our side. Most people are okay being moderately liberal because it is socially popular. However, if we can force a confrontation within those individuals between Left and Right, we can force them to make a choice. They either become radical Leftists, or turn conservative.