Plus, we're arguing for the ability to dissent in the future, not just crush all other factions.

Which is why we need a new approach to the organization and fighting

And, I mean, Anti-SJWs are a problem, but the longer they stay completely isolated, the more extreme and difficult they become. And the easier time the SJWs have in punishing everyone else.

SJW is way to loaded of a term, I try not to use it , but I get what you are saying

It's perfect for the sjw to Anti-SJW comparison.

One sees racism/sexism everywhere, the other sees the progressive/feminist adjenda everywhere

But this is besides the point

and using that term only emboldens that grenade

Which there is no way around

This is a red herring, the question is what to do.

^^^^^^^^^^

Well what the communists did was go underground, scapegoat others and install themselves in positions where they could alter public perception/thoughts/opinions

Media, Education, Academia, etc

Indeed. And how to do it without setting a precedent for more government control of private interactions

I think you're chasing way too much purity Grenade.

Plus, you're too skeptical of these things.

Pardon me if I don't like the idea of pushing the government into things when the problem is already centralized power.

Again thats not the suggestion

There is no suggestion

The point is to get the government out of a as many things as possible since it is an institution controlled by the enemy

that's a bit too far in black or white thinking for me to endorse blackhawk

the other option is to continue to ignore the larger strategic picture

Indeed, think of Google and the CA laws on Political discrimination.

to view ww2 not as a series of campaigns and logistics, but of battles and tactical decisions

if you do that I promise you, you will lose

No, Blackhawk. There's a tactical picture that matter and if you can't win on the battlefield the grandest of strategies doesn't matter.

The left pushed the political discrimination laws in CA, doesn't mean they aren't potentially useful to us.

And a law to the effect of "Banks will not close accounts on political affiliation" seems like it would do alot for this recent case too.

My larger argument is that the government is aside the point anyway.

Using problem laws against their proponents is a good wait to win support of the opposition to remove them. The trick is identifying a successful method of using them.

Then read rules for radicals and apply it universally

Well, laws or policies.

Much like the guys suing Universities for having women's only things without allowing a men's only version

There is a risk of backfiring

risk is inherent in life

If you want it gone get yourself arrested and put in solitary confinement

Of the opposition accepting the result which you didn't want in the first place. Like leftists accepting the loss of women's only programs rather than pushing back against the "attack against women"

No, don't read Rules for Radicals, read *this*

```RULES FOR RADICALS is honestly not very useful for Righties, despite the fact that it’s the only Lefty organizing book of which a lot of Righties have even heard. In the Tea Party heyday, people basically xeroxed Alinsky’s chapter on tactics: you know: “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it,” all that stuff. But if you read the rest of the book, you quickly see the problem: Alinsky had the benefit of lefty Institutions, many of which he didn’t even have to build, and he blithely assumes that you’ve got access to Institutional support the way he did. Dude ran an organizer training school with a full-time fifteen-month curriculum. Yeah, no, not gonna help us Righties right now```https://status451.com/2017/10/27/radical-book-club-the-centralized-left/

Read what?

The link

all of it