It's also important for us to "live* through our values beyond talking directly about politics. For a long time the left / Liberals have always look at mentioning politics as something not polite/desirable. Meanwhile, the right has no problem sprinkling their politics throughout every facet of their lives. As a result, they're always "selling" their "values" even when they're not communicating within the context of politics. We need to get better at doing the same.
You're right. I've written already about how protests seem to have become costume parties & best-sign competitions. We need to DO something, & you are providing us with the best road map I've seen so far.
But that's only half the strategy when you think about it. The other half is to get those of us who don't want us to become a fascist dystopia to go into silence. And if we choose self-exile, then we're just doing their work for them.
I understand your reasoning more now. I still think that IF we could mobilize 50 million Americans - bipartisan from left and right - to migrate off Facebook and X - we could make real progress in the fight against rising authoritarianism.
That said, as you pointed out, the numbers so far haven't been large enough to impact power structures. And if those leaving are mostly from the left, it risks creating a vacuum that concentrates even more hate speech and manipulation.
But concerns about toxic social media concerns are not just coming from the left. I hear it echoed by the right, including people like MTG and Marsha Blackburn.
Personally, I find Facebook a cesspool of nonsense, a dangerous platform that harbor child predators and being used to surveil people illegally. It feels like such a dangerous place to be on so many levels. And anyone seeking clarity and safety online should seriously consider leaving.
If we could build a high-visibility, bipartisan boycott of Meta, I still think it could be powerful.
Thanks for the thought-provoking essay — it’s given me a lot to consider.
I hear you. And I hope that there can be a time when we can take Meta and X down. But here's sort of how the math plays out in my head in terms of order of operations:
Until we can get people who currently use social media to wake up to the fact that we're undergoing a fascist takeover, which should be obvious on its face and terrifying enough to jolt people into action, we have exactly 0.00% chance of convincing those same people of the dangers to mental health related to social media consumption, or of all the other issues you point out — all of which I completely agree with — given that all of these issues are much more nuanced and less obvious than the fascist takeover.
So, I think that however unfortunate it might be that we can't snap people out of social media directly, that it is nevertheless the case that the only way that we will ever be able to meaningfully deliver a convincing message to enough people to be able to effectuate the meaningful change we both want will be to do it from the inside. Like it or not, that's where the vast majority of people are, and whatever is going to convince them of anything, will come from those places because you can't be convinced by messaging you don't see or have access to.
I don't like this reality. I did not have a social media account — aside from my Facebook account that I created back in high school that I have barely touched in some 20 years — until after the 2024 election. Not twitter, not Instagram, not even WhatsApp. For years I made the exact same arguments you made when we discussed this on another thread. And yet, now I'm on every platform trying however I can to be a voice against the regime because I see exactly the game they are playing, how good they are at it, and not only how effective and terrifying their strategy can be but what it has already achieved and continues to achieve.
I hear what you are saying. However, did you see the speed at which anyone who spoke the truth about Charlie Kirk were identified within 24 hours and terminated right up to Jimmy Kimmel? They perfect this response every day now
Yes, they have done the thing I'm saying we must do:
1. Regain our footing on social media. Their messaging spreads so quickly because there's so little pushback from our side. The 30 million people on Bluesky (or other echo chambers) telling each other about how fascism is bad has very little impact on the rest of the world who's not in the same echo chambers, which is the vast majority of Americans, not to say the human population.
2. Stop playing defense. I've written about this extensively across several articles now. We must not let them set the narrative. The example you offered is perfect. They tried to label Dems/Left as terrorists. I, for one, almost immediately put out the data showing how, if we are going to be throwing broad strokes to define one side or the other as terrorists, that the right is obviously the one holding terrorist ideologies. Did our side immediately use the actual data to fight back and give the right the choice to either shut up about broadly painting either side as terrorists or to be themselves labeled the actual terrorists from now until forever? No. All we did was whine about people being fired and about freedom of speech. Yes, it was bad that people were fired. Yes, it was bad to violate freedom of speech. But both arguments are defensive and weak. It doesn't matter that Kimmel is back. The right is still pushing that the left is a threat with virtual no pushback even though the data clearly shows otherwise.
3. Focus our message. Too many people on the left want to be thought leaders with their own nuance, their own messaging, their own silos that they care about—myself included to be fair. Yet, ask any of them for their full messaging strategy. Most of them have no real strategy, no real overarching story that captures everything that is going on, what the problem is, what the solutions should be, how we can bring them about, etc. And so, it all just becomes dissonant noise that just creates confusion and makes us look like we have no direction. Meanwhile, pay attention to the right and you will see very few people that control their narrative at any given time, and you can easily point them out: Stephen Miller (anti-immigration), Steve Bannon (overwhelm the media), Cristopher Rufo (attacks on CRT/DEI), MTG (Christian Nationalism), Tucker Carlson (Conspiracism/Replacement Theory) Laural Loomer and Posobiec (gluing the others together)... You can clearly pick any portion of their ideology (note also that each one of them are about defeating us much more so than playing defense) and see that there's typically one or a very few people driving it and a few that glue them all together. We don't have that on the left. We mostly have stenographers (people that just point to the bad things the right is doing who say they're bad) and those who are just playing defense for their silo.
We should be winning this. The truth and the facts are on our side. We're losing because we're choosing to work hard instead of working smart, and because we're refusing to accept that not all messaging is equal in quality. We need to coalesce behind those who can deliver full packages (ideas) capable of taking down the fascists rather than each trying to be their own tiny megaphone. For instance: I was watching our side of social media yesterday. Half of it was consumed by the Trump & Epstein statue at the mall. What did that accomplish? Precisely nothing whatsoever. So, all the "energy" put towards talking about it was a complete waste of time that could have gone towards something that could have been useful for countering the right's narrative.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. For me it is encouraging. That being said what can you and I do when the opposition party does so little? They are just finding a footing to respond faster to his assaults. Why aren’t photos of trump/epstein outside churches each week and let maga elders explain to their children? News outlets could at least delay his speeches and clear lies before broadcasting? Just one outlet would make a difference! Then maybe we would have a shot. Years ago I wrote my senators (useless) and the FCC (useless too) that fox entertainment should be labeled as such and not allowed to be called a news outlet. No chance of that happening now
Whether it's the media or the Democratic Party, they are made up of humans. Why would they be any more capable of clarity, conviction or character when most of us "resisting" aren't? I hate to say this, but the reason why rightwing media and their party seem so much more capable of controlling the narrative has much less to do with their money (remember, blue states have much higher GDP than red states, California alone has the 4th highest GDP in the planet on its own), and a lot more to do with the conviction, coherence and clarity (however twisted) of their adherents. They maybe be rabid fascists/theocrats, but at least they have core beliefs that tie together all their actions/messaging and they know how to coalesce behind their best communicators, none of which can said for most of us who are trying to stop them.
Thanks and you are correct. They have a much simpler message but as you know the issues are too complex for them to solve. At some point that narrative and its mantras are still worth repeating but time will run out as reality catches up. When you win on grievance issues but then need real ideas to govern the alternatives decrease quickly
Every fascist government will inevitably fail because they are not based on reality. As they eliminate their enemies, they also eliminate their scapegoats, and sooner or later even the most loyal cultist is bound to see the folly of the cult.
The issue though is twofold:
- You probably don't want to wait for them to fail, as that involves allowing them to literally eliminate enough groups of people for their failure to become obvious.
- There will always be a significant number of them at the core, who having gone too deep into the darkness of fascism, will see it as impossible to turn back as their actions will be so vile as to make their return to humanity impossible, such that they will spend the remainder of their days pursuing fascist goals no matter how obvious their failure becomes.
Yes! I will read and study your guidelines and amplify my messages according to your suggestions of brevity, emotion, simplicity, storytelling with heroes and heroines with real names, strong punch lines, being real and in the present. And I will aim for a minimum of 1 post/day and will ask recipients to amplify!
This Daily Beast interview with Dr John Gartner is a great watch to discuss Cheeto’s advancing dementia(https://bit.ly/47TyuxN) which is more and more noticeable as the symptoms are clear As Gartner notes we have digital tracking over the years to compare where he was 20 years ago and now how his functioning has deteriorated that is not explained by advancement of age And the stress of the presidency is obviously accelerating his dementia and psychopathy
The interview exposes the reasons why we are making many of the observations of Cheeto who is clinically described as a malignant narcissistic who is a sadist, unable to love, and having no remorse of past criminal behavior Epstein shared the same psychopathy
(The following, which I have yet to write, is why we are destined to lose.)
Currently, it’s Thursday evening after a long day, a couple of weeks past this article’s publication. Things in congress have happened, and no longer continue to happen, for now.
I did try to wade through the article. The author had me until the “why does everyone think using this now dubious example is a good idea,” Stanford Prison experiment.
Still, The basic premise is painfully true. Say something long enough and loud enough and it becomes the truth.
However, the conclusion to the article is, um, let me look…uh…wait a moment, something about reposting something, and getting behind someone who no matter how hard I try I cannot remember the name of…and, oh that was it.
I'm curious on your stance on my utilization of the Stanford Prison Experiment. The experiment has been highly challenged for a number of reasons, such as the later found unneutral interactions between the researchers and the individuals, along with the bias involved in the selection process given the individuals most likely to answer to the ads would likely already have psychological traits that would make the observed behavior more likely. However, my use of the experiment was not for the purpose of validating its conclusion, nor did it rely on its validity. Rather, it is used as an example of precisely what happens when you have individuals being repeatedly told to be cruel by an outside source, something that did happen in the experiment (and part of the reasons for challenging the results), as well as how being placed in such an environment can cause individuals who are generally normal to become cruel (potentially manifesting traits that may have gone "dormant" forever), again, evidenced by the experiment regardless of the validity if its conclusions. Do you think that if an experiment is found to have flawed conclusions due to its methodology that everything about it must be discarded as useless? Personally, I believe that you can discard the conclusion and yet evaluate whether there is useful insight that can be gathered from the experiments' shortcomings.
Finally, on my conclusion, given that it's a close scoped analysis/comparison on information/psychological warfare and how the left seems to be mistakenly thinking that street protests can defeat the rights' use of social media, I understand how it might have felt lacking in closure at the end given my advice. If you'd like something that's a lot more hands-on, I invite you to read my plan for dealing with the shutdown, as I offer a much more active course of action there:
You said a lot in your response. I'm not sure that I'll get to address all your points, because they disappear above my words the more I write. I already lost a fairly long reply because it didn't save as I sent back to refer to your words. So here goes.
Narcissists do know what reality is which is what keeps them deliberately masking their own fragile identity. They've often become quite adept at covering up their extreme vulnerabilities and portraying the very picture of confidence and strength though they're deathly afraid of having that exposed. On top of that they are pathological liars, even to themselves, so they can appear very convincing to others.
What if people aren't self-destructive, as you say, so much as "ill-equipped" to cope with their distress, and are afraid, and simply running to who or what appears to be have the answers and who makes them feel safe (enter the "strongman!" who some say only comes along every 100 years or so!). I believe the MAGA people were already spread out in the sphere, but a larger-than-life figure gave them a place and a person around which to gather, who started saying the things previous to his arrival that they only talked about, quietly, amongst themselves. Imo, MAGA didn't just arrive; they've only come out of hiding and become publicly emboldened, having found a delusional slogan behind which to rally, Make America ... , well you know. They're all too happy to stand behind and beside their adopted spokesperson. The tragedy is that we didn't do better than to just teach "tolerance" of those seemingly different from each of us; we should have been preaching love of our fellow man. But that's another text perhaps. At this point that is too big a leap for some to make in this climate, but it's still worth planting the seed.
When in great fear, and perhaps in times of great confusion and uncertainty, and when there seems to be no clear choice (as in the pre-2024 election), people will do the fight, flight, freeze or fawn behaviors. 70M people didn't even vote! (Freeze) Trump's cabinet and the GOP Congress clearly fall into the fawn category. If not too entrenched, they can potentially be reasoned with, especially if the results of that choice are leading to disappointment (some GOP Reps joining in to sign the Discharge Petition re the Epstein files). You get the idea.
This is where it's my hope that we all do still stay as engaged as possible and do stay open-minded and even provide a safe place for the ex-MAGAs to land. I see them as basically, scared, lost sleep, who didn't realize they ran right toward the darkness and further danger, reflexively, in many instances. We do have to increase our base, but even just for the sake of humanity, we need to consider that timing, wording and non- judgment are essential before their coming back to the fold can occur, and further demystifying ourselves to one another. Of course, not everyone will be able to shift alliances or blend groups, given their own personal, psychological make up, and any guilt they may carry, but we have to allow for the opportunity.
I'm all about open discussions, but the other person has to have represented the ability to express themselves and their POV well enough to keep me engaging with them. When people are on the same side, in general, I don't see the reason to take the argument to the mat, however. And at other times I might see there's no point in elevating the conversation to one of pure logic or reason if somebody appears to be coming from a place of pure emotionality. Even then, though, I could decide to meet them at that place and acknowledge having felt that way at some point and time, which can help us move our thoughts to what we have in common because in the end that's what matters most.
I applaud you for taking the time to engage with people and for being open-minded. It's likely why I engaged with you in the first place.
I hate when that happens (losing your comment draft). Recently I’ve begun typing long comments in notepad/word to make sure they can’t go anywhere just because I accidentally clicked out of it or something else. Anyway, I digress…
I couldn’t agree more on the need to provide safe off-ramps to those in MAGA. I also couldn’t agree more how many in MAGA are not inherently white-supremacists or theocrats, but rather disillusioned individuals who saw in MAGA their only hope, which means that those of us who are not in MAGA have failed to “sell” a better option.
If you were to distil my writings, I think it would be 1/3 about the ills of the MAGA ideology, 1/3 about the failures of modern liberal democracy/neoliberalism, and 1/3 how do we rebuild our democracy so that people don’t have to live in all sorts of despair and be driven towards ideologies like MAGA.
I honestly believe that the only way we can truly defeat the MAGA threat is by committing to putting an end to the very neoliberalism that birthed the perfect fertile ground for the MAGA ideology to grow. It has been our failure to build a society where everyone can prosper, rather than just those at the very top, which has created the resentment and moral vacuum that allowed for men like Trump to rise in power.
And it is in this respect that the mission becomes almost overwhelming. It feels as though I’m trying to defeat both sides of the same battle, not only to pushback against the MAGA ideology, but also against the neoliberal ideology which still remains intent on its refusal to surrender. It may be that sometimes I might come across too harsh or abrasive. But I have, for the moment, decided that I would rather err on that side than on the side of appeasement, as that has been the modus operandi of both sides, i.e., to appease their own.
So, I hope that if nothing else, that my strategy is clear and coherent to others, even if they don’t always agree with them.
You really have a great way of expressing your thoughts so they come across clearly. I didn't find your statement harsh. I got that you were meeting a certain energy with that same energy. Everyone has their own style of getting their point across, perhaps depending on who, or what statement, they're facing.
I can't help but wonder if there isn't a (possibly very) messy place between a fixed stance and appeasement, that doesn't even have to involve compromise.
There's a book (can't think of the title rn) I'm told on how to defeat totalitarianism (by Hannah Arendt) and the premise is based on people truly listening and talking to one another from a "sincere" place. So somehow each of us may have to learn to be able to stop wanting to be right, stop arguing with one another and stop seeing labels first and instead choosing to be vulnerable with one another, sharing our true feelings (fears, doubts, dreams, disappointments, dreams, etc.), approaching with a childlike curiosity.
Something else to think about. How do you reach people who have stopped reading books and news articles and are now dependent on short visual and oral stories to get information? Not with complicated policy statements. It’s sad that we have to dumb everything down to an emotional message, but that’s where we are.
What precisely do the picket signs do exclusively?
I don't have anything inherently against them, but I also cannot point to a thing that makes them uniquely important or capable of accomplishing such that given the inefficiency of messaging with them (in person commitment) I struggle to see a reason for their utilization in the 21st century other than to hold on to the past as though it is a solution to the present.
I didn’t say they were “uniquely” important or effective. Nor do they need to be. I don’t believe we need to be looking for one magical perfect solution. My point is, there is no reason to dismiss, disparage or abandon one weapon in order to promote another. We need all the weapons. Both small and large. All the allies, both simple and sophisticated. Different people have different capabilities and perspectives. Different audiences respond to different things. Lots of ordinary people showing up with signs of and slogans, for example, give formal media and social continuous visual representations to feed their screens … which other ordinary people see and feel less alone, perhaps empowered to act in some small way. And those in power also see those screens. This may not feel satisfying to you - nor is it the only way to take action. But it is possible for many people, and simple exercises of free speech are necessary because our right to free speech does not exist if we do not exercise it. This is not a fight that will be won quickly, and building public solidarity through simple acts is key to creating momentum. Courage is contagious.
I didn’t say they were “uniquely” important or effective. Nor do they need to be. I don’t believe we need to be looking for one magical perfect solution. My point is, there is no reason to dismiss, disparage or abandon one weapon in order to promote another. We need all the weapons. Both small and large. All the allies, both simple and sophisticated. Different people have different capabilities and perspectives. Different audiences respond to different things. Lots of ordinary people showing up with signs and slogans, for example, feed formal and social media screens … which other ordinary people see and feel less alone, perhaps empowered to act in some small way. And those in power also see those screens. This may not feel satisfying to you - nor is it the only way to take action. But it is possible for many people, and simple exercises of free speech are necessary because our right to free speech does not exist if we do not exercise it. This is not a fight that will be won quickly, and building public solidarity through simple acts is key to creating momentum. Courage is contagious.
This is a great analysis but protests shouldn’t be dismissed outright. In Nepal, very recently, the government was brought down by mass protests, after the regime turned violent. (I’m not advocating for the reaction to that violence, where they literally burned down the government but that anger was understandable.) It has been said that if 3.5 percent of the population rises up in protest that that will defeat an authoritarian regime, but I think the point of that is lost here. It has to be almost daily protest, not the polite, every once in a while, line up the correct permits, the protest marshals etc. protests we see here. (Again I’m not advocating for violence) Mass peaceful civil disobedience brought down the British, ended segregation (but not systemic racism), helped to end the war in Vietnam, And the recent Black Lives Matter movement was probably the most powerful protest movement in the US, although it created a major backlash because, of course, this is a totally racist society, there was a major error in messaging and because of the concurrent looting, some of which was instigated by agent provocateurs. But now Americans are still too comfortable, still apathetic and afraid. I fully endorse your ideas but don’t poo poo protests as an effective tool.
All fair points. But let me tackle some of them in the interest of clarity (don't take this as a takedown of what you said, as I think every point you raised are actually valid and important given their prevalence in the resistance's "mindset" that truly deserve scrutiny if we are to succeed and your bringing them up here is a great service to the conversation):
- On Redefining Protest v. Dismissing It:
I'm not at all dismissing protests. Quite the contrary, I want people to protest. What I am challenging is this idea that seems to have been burnt into our brains that protest = marching on the streets with signs. I'd even suggest that it is precisely this pervasive paradigm that may have driven you to believe I was dismissing protests outright.
- On the Economics of Persistent Street Protests:
They are not going to happen. I have written about this in other articles, but the personal cost of persistent street protests like we saw in the 60s/70s in the U.S. make it an impossibility. Back then, people in general had a much more financially healthy life. It was much easier for a substantial amount of people to be able to take time off work to protest or to be civically engaged. Today, when we're dealing with a personal debt crisis, a home affordability crisis, a healthcare affordability crisis, an education cost crisis, etc., the social cost of pursuing a strategy that relies on getting enough people to take time out of their lives to maintain persistent protests is a pipedream of people who are just middle-class enough not to realize how many people are struggling to survive.
- On the "3.5% Rule" Fallacy:
Even Erica Chenoweth, the person who originally noted the threshold has said this is not a magic bullet. Additionally, it has been noted that this was true for revolutions between 1900-2006, but that since 2010 authoritarian regimes have done an excellent job of adapting and that the success of such revolutions has been greatly diminished as a result. Finally, there now seems to be counter-examples that have expressly defeated the 3.5% threshold (Bahrain, which failed despite reaching 6%) while the fact remains that most mass movements that succeed do so without having to each the 3.5% threshold at all. Bottom line: the 3.5% is a statistical artifact that seems to correlate with other things that lead to success, not the thing that leads to success, and as such, has no business being treated as an objective, and doing so is a recipe for failure especially when you consider my point above. Pretty useful source, by the very person who coined the 3.5% rule: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/questions-answers-and-some-cautionary-updates-regarding-35-rule
- On Modern Civil Disobedience:
The term is widely credited to Henry David Thoreau's essay—by the way, it was the first thing about politics that truly caught my interest back in high school—where he calls those who see injustice to "let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine." Given how much of society today happens in front of screens on social media and that the fascist regime utilizes that very social media to grow its hold on society, let me ask you, what is more like letting "your life be counter-friction to stop the machine": To go out on the street with signs where virtually nobody will see you, or to relentlessly disrupt the regime's ideology precisely where it most effectively grows its power? I have great confidence that Thoreau, the very man credited with the term "Civil Disobedience," would likely have written something similar to this article were he alive today.
Again, thank you for the excellent comment. It's this kind of strategic questioning that sharpens our focus and ultimately makes us all more effective.
Valid points, I don’t think this 3.5% idea is absolute. While, as I gave, as an example, the protests in Nepal that did end that regime, Nepal is a very different circumstance than the US. And while civil disobedience is not the same as protesting I don’t think our society is really capable of accomplishing any amount of large enough civil disobedience with the sacrifices that involves to be effective. So I am also open to new ideas. While boycotts are also effective, again even though the ABC/boycott worked, to a degree, as did Tesla and Target the “resistance” is splintered, unnecessarily, so even though I wish e we could marshal a powerful boycott like “Black Out the System” we are not there yet (I am being optimistic). I need to re-read your ideas to understand them better.
I think that there's objectively a massive amount that can be done by people literally just being on their phones (though this is certainly not the only thing, but definitely the easiest), from the comfort of their own homes.
How I know? The right has, in essence, built their entire fascist regime, which is based on lies and disinformation, precisely that way. So, the power of transferring information via these tools has already been proven and well beyond debate.
We can defeat them with the exact same tools. We just need to adapt the way we communicate to understand that political persuasion, contrary to our tendency to treat everything like a debate club, does not come from lectures and stats, but rather from simple ideas repeated relentlessly in cohesion by a large number of people. The left tries too hard to chase after creativity and nuance. Everyone wants to be the one that figured out the 4d chess move, to be the one that figured out some elaborate way to explain something simple, to make it all about the brains and not about emotions because we want to believe we've "evolved" beyond emotions.
And here's the thing, if we can't even do the above, which is rather simple, there's no way we're going to be able to do anything else that meaningfully changes the status quo, so trying to go for the other things first seems utterly pointless to me. And this is why I focus so much on the power of language over psychology, and why I push so hard for utilizing the most effective communication tools available, which sadly, at this point, have been largely taken over by the right, which is a different strategy for a different day.
But yeah, check out the Anti-MAGA Messaging Guide. It goes into a lot more detail about how I believe the way we communicate needs to change and how to go about making those changes.
I understand what you're saying and I see your point, that there at least needs to be a counteracting presence on social media to have a chance, because right now, there is almost no left-wing presence. At the same time, I have to be honest: the thought of my re-creating a facebook account to do exactly this feels akin to jumping into a tank of raw sewage.
And if I were to jump in anyway, to support democracy and anti-fascist efforts, I question democratic voices being any more effective within social media than they have been outside of it, which is to say, not very. Look at fox viewership compared to nbc/abc/msnbc/cnn. fox dominated.
And when the other networks had the ability to close the viewership gap by almost exclusively covering dump—being trolled by him—at the expense of more relevant news, they chose dump, they chose money. But what it revealed of people is that they choose emotional titillation, sensationalism, over fact, whenever they're presented with a choice between the two.
I'm not trying to be pedantic or defeatist. I want to know what the greater action is. It can't merely be being there. Simple numbers won't do it. What is the proposed tactic for combatting right-wing lies if truth-telling doesn't work?
This is an excellent question—in fact it is the most important question.
Leaving the platforms is half of the issue. The other half is how we communicate in general. We repeatedly place ourselves in a defensive position when it comes to virtually everything we believe in. That is the GREATEST communication mistake we can make. I will give just one short/simple example:
When right-wingers try to attack LGBTQ+ people because they're a supposed threat to children, we can't help but jump to defend the legitimacy and LGBTQ+ people's right to exist. Or to try and explain how LGBTQ+ people aren't a threat to children. That is the trap right there, the moment you start debating their rights, the moment you start debating their legitimacy, the moment you start debating whether they're a threat:
- You have surrendered the framing to the right.
- You have legitimized their attacks as something that is debatable.
- You have inherently and unintentionally accepted that maybe LGBTQ+ are not legitimate or that they don't have the right to exist or that they could be a threat.
- You have inadvertently placed our values under "social scrutiny," while leaving the right's ideology unscathed.
Rather, what you want to do is immediately shift the debate to something like:
- If you care so much about children, why do you keep starving them by defunding school lunches?
- If you care so much about children, why do you keep killing them by taking healthcare away from children?
- If you care so much about children. why you keep covering for the actual pedos by not going after the pedos in your churches and among your thought leaders? (there's a massive prevalence of pedophilia among rightwing circles that dwarfs the anything in the left).
- If you care so much about children, why do you sacrifice so many children's lives at the NRA altar every year, making it the deadliest thing to children in the US?
---
Do you see the drastic difference between the two?
The first should be obvious: rather than trying to debate LGBTQ+ people, I immediately shifted the debate to force their supposed "values" into scrutiny. But also, importantly, look at what I did not do. I'm not trying to turn it into a lecture, or a stats powerpoint. Rather, I'm using highly accusatory language ("starving," "killing," "protecting pedos," "sacrificing) that presupposes the impact of their values on children as a given (because I know the stats will back me up, if necessary, though I will not use them unless challenged). The only time I would actually use the stats is to force the pivot on the subject. For example: I would say, ok, if you care so much about children, let's talk about the fact that thanks to your child sacrifices at the altar of the NRA, gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in the U.S., so until LGBTQ+ people become a greater threat to children than your ideology, I'm not going to play games that pretend they are. That's it, no more stats, from there on out, the debate is purely on morals, values and emotions, because no matter how much you might want it not to be so, we're all still just monkeys heavily governed by our emotions rather than our brains.
---
So, in short, the two worst things you can actually do to defend our values are:
- To debate them as though they are up for question—when rightwing ideology betrays every single "value" they try to claim
- To try and turn every debate into a stats lecture.
And unfortunately, these 2 things are essentially what virtually everyone on the left does when they try to debate ideology. You can go through all of it, whether it's patriotism, the Constitution, law & order, etc. I have virtually never met a Dem/Liberal/Lefty who properly "defended" our values rather than inadvertently stabbing those values in the back by accepting the terms of debate set by the right.
Now, there's a lot of nuance for how you follow these strategies I'm advocating for that I could never explain in a comment. I have however, written a full guide that explains the entire thing in excruciating detail and examples that I strongly recommend everyone to check out:
That's one part of it. But definitely not all of it, and not that simple.
As far as memes go, they need to focus on HOW the cult BETREAYS their stated values. All the stuff that just directly attacks the individuals in the cult, or that attack the claimed values themselves, etc. are all just fodder for the cult.
And going beyond the memes, it's about identifying who you're communicating with and handling them properly.
- Is this someone who is a diehard fascist/theocrat/etc.? Then your goal is to crush them as publicly as possible in a way that makes an example out of them, but specifically, again, by portraying how they're a grifter/manipulator/etc. betraying the values that they proclaim to uphold.
- Is this someone who's just found their way into the cult because they're disillusioned, or because they're struggling economically, etc. and they feel like the left has abandoned them (Dems have, in fact, over the last 50-60 years, abandoned much of the working-class people)? Then you want to acknowledge their struggles, their values, show them how the right has betrayed those values, and invite them to help build a better left, while acknowledging the ways in which Dems have in fact betrayed working people over the last few decades by pandering to corporations.
So, yes, memes are a part of it, but hardly all, and there's a lot to consider even when it comes to memes. It's not about just yelling and attacking like a rabid person. It's about being strategic on the way you craft your messaging, so that it creates wedges in the cult rather than uniting the cult. It's also about understanding how MAGA is not a monolith and how there's a lot of dissonance between the factions that make up MAGA that we can exploit in our messaging (especially when it comes to memes). I've also written a short article on those differences and a full book-length series on how these factions have converged into what we have now over the last 50 years.
💯
It's also important for us to "live* through our values beyond talking directly about politics. For a long time the left / Liberals have always look at mentioning politics as something not polite/desirable. Meanwhile, the right has no problem sprinkling their politics throughout every facet of their lives. As a result, they're always "selling" their "values" even when they're not communicating within the context of politics. We need to get better at doing the same.
You're right. I've written already about how protests seem to have become costume parties & best-sign competitions. We need to DO something, & you are providing us with the best road map I've seen so far.
Steve Bannon’s “Flood the zone with shit” is an open embrace of Goebbel’s “Big Lie” and Russia’s “Firehose of Falsehood”
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/16/media/steve-bannon-reliable-sources
100%
But that's only half the strategy when you think about it. The other half is to get those of us who don't want us to become a fascist dystopia to go into silence. And if we choose self-exile, then we're just doing their work for them.
Agreed. We must be relentless. It won't always be easy. Nevertheless, we'll persist!
I understand your reasoning more now. I still think that IF we could mobilize 50 million Americans - bipartisan from left and right - to migrate off Facebook and X - we could make real progress in the fight against rising authoritarianism.
That said, as you pointed out, the numbers so far haven't been large enough to impact power structures. And if those leaving are mostly from the left, it risks creating a vacuum that concentrates even more hate speech and manipulation.
But concerns about toxic social media concerns are not just coming from the left. I hear it echoed by the right, including people like MTG and Marsha Blackburn.
Personally, I find Facebook a cesspool of nonsense, a dangerous platform that harbor child predators and being used to surveil people illegally. It feels like such a dangerous place to be on so many levels. And anyone seeking clarity and safety online should seriously consider leaving.
If we could build a high-visibility, bipartisan boycott of Meta, I still think it could be powerful.
Thanks for the thought-provoking essay — it’s given me a lot to consider.
I hear you. And I hope that there can be a time when we can take Meta and X down. But here's sort of how the math plays out in my head in terms of order of operations:
Until we can get people who currently use social media to wake up to the fact that we're undergoing a fascist takeover, which should be obvious on its face and terrifying enough to jolt people into action, we have exactly 0.00% chance of convincing those same people of the dangers to mental health related to social media consumption, or of all the other issues you point out — all of which I completely agree with — given that all of these issues are much more nuanced and less obvious than the fascist takeover.
So, I think that however unfortunate it might be that we can't snap people out of social media directly, that it is nevertheless the case that the only way that we will ever be able to meaningfully deliver a convincing message to enough people to be able to effectuate the meaningful change we both want will be to do it from the inside. Like it or not, that's where the vast majority of people are, and whatever is going to convince them of anything, will come from those places because you can't be convinced by messaging you don't see or have access to.
I don't like this reality. I did not have a social media account — aside from my Facebook account that I created back in high school that I have barely touched in some 20 years — until after the 2024 election. Not twitter, not Instagram, not even WhatsApp. For years I made the exact same arguments you made when we discussed this on another thread. And yet, now I'm on every platform trying however I can to be a voice against the regime because I see exactly the game they are playing, how good they are at it, and not only how effective and terrifying their strategy can be but what it has already achieved and continues to achieve.
Well said!
I hear what you are saying. However, did you see the speed at which anyone who spoke the truth about Charlie Kirk were identified within 24 hours and terminated right up to Jimmy Kimmel? They perfect this response every day now
Yes, they have done the thing I'm saying we must do:
1. Regain our footing on social media. Their messaging spreads so quickly because there's so little pushback from our side. The 30 million people on Bluesky (or other echo chambers) telling each other about how fascism is bad has very little impact on the rest of the world who's not in the same echo chambers, which is the vast majority of Americans, not to say the human population.
2. Stop playing defense. I've written about this extensively across several articles now. We must not let them set the narrative. The example you offered is perfect. They tried to label Dems/Left as terrorists. I, for one, almost immediately put out the data showing how, if we are going to be throwing broad strokes to define one side or the other as terrorists, that the right is obviously the one holding terrorist ideologies. Did our side immediately use the actual data to fight back and give the right the choice to either shut up about broadly painting either side as terrorists or to be themselves labeled the actual terrorists from now until forever? No. All we did was whine about people being fired and about freedom of speech. Yes, it was bad that people were fired. Yes, it was bad to violate freedom of speech. But both arguments are defensive and weak. It doesn't matter that Kimmel is back. The right is still pushing that the left is a threat with virtual no pushback even though the data clearly shows otherwise.
3. Focus our message. Too many people on the left want to be thought leaders with their own nuance, their own messaging, their own silos that they care about—myself included to be fair. Yet, ask any of them for their full messaging strategy. Most of them have no real strategy, no real overarching story that captures everything that is going on, what the problem is, what the solutions should be, how we can bring them about, etc. And so, it all just becomes dissonant noise that just creates confusion and makes us look like we have no direction. Meanwhile, pay attention to the right and you will see very few people that control their narrative at any given time, and you can easily point them out: Stephen Miller (anti-immigration), Steve Bannon (overwhelm the media), Cristopher Rufo (attacks on CRT/DEI), MTG (Christian Nationalism), Tucker Carlson (Conspiracism/Replacement Theory) Laural Loomer and Posobiec (gluing the others together)... You can clearly pick any portion of their ideology (note also that each one of them are about defeating us much more so than playing defense) and see that there's typically one or a very few people driving it and a few that glue them all together. We don't have that on the left. We mostly have stenographers (people that just point to the bad things the right is doing who say they're bad) and those who are just playing defense for their silo.
We should be winning this. The truth and the facts are on our side. We're losing because we're choosing to work hard instead of working smart, and because we're refusing to accept that not all messaging is equal in quality. We need to coalesce behind those who can deliver full packages (ideas) capable of taking down the fascists rather than each trying to be their own tiny megaphone. For instance: I was watching our side of social media yesterday. Half of it was consumed by the Trump & Epstein statue at the mall. What did that accomplish? Precisely nothing whatsoever. So, all the "energy" put towards talking about it was a complete waste of time that could have gone towards something that could have been useful for countering the right's narrative.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. For me it is encouraging. That being said what can you and I do when the opposition party does so little? They are just finding a footing to respond faster to his assaults. Why aren’t photos of trump/epstein outside churches each week and let maga elders explain to their children? News outlets could at least delay his speeches and clear lies before broadcasting? Just one outlet would make a difference! Then maybe we would have a shot. Years ago I wrote my senators (useless) and the FCC (useless too) that fox entertainment should be labeled as such and not allowed to be called a news outlet. No chance of that happening now
Whether it's the media or the Democratic Party, they are made up of humans. Why would they be any more capable of clarity, conviction or character when most of us "resisting" aren't? I hate to say this, but the reason why rightwing media and their party seem so much more capable of controlling the narrative has much less to do with their money (remember, blue states have much higher GDP than red states, California alone has the 4th highest GDP in the planet on its own), and a lot more to do with the conviction, coherence and clarity (however twisted) of their adherents. They maybe be rabid fascists/theocrats, but at least they have core beliefs that tie together all their actions/messaging and they know how to coalesce behind their best communicators, none of which can said for most of us who are trying to stop them.
Thanks and you are correct. They have a much simpler message but as you know the issues are too complex for them to solve. At some point that narrative and its mantras are still worth repeating but time will run out as reality catches up. When you win on grievance issues but then need real ideas to govern the alternatives decrease quickly
💯
Every fascist government will inevitably fail because they are not based on reality. As they eliminate their enemies, they also eliminate their scapegoats, and sooner or later even the most loyal cultist is bound to see the folly of the cult.
The issue though is twofold:
- You probably don't want to wait for them to fail, as that involves allowing them to literally eliminate enough groups of people for their failure to become obvious.
- There will always be a significant number of them at the core, who having gone too deep into the darkness of fascism, will see it as impossible to turn back as their actions will be so vile as to make their return to humanity impossible, such that they will spend the remainder of their days pursuing fascist goals no matter how obvious their failure becomes.
Very well said
Yes! I will read and study your guidelines and amplify my messages according to your suggestions of brevity, emotion, simplicity, storytelling with heroes and heroines with real names, strong punch lines, being real and in the present. And I will aim for a minimum of 1 post/day and will ask recipients to amplify!
Thank you,
Janet
ReSister, CT
Dangerous Demented Cheeto Who Is Just Plain Evil
This Daily Beast interview with Dr John Gartner is a great watch to discuss Cheeto’s advancing dementia(https://bit.ly/47TyuxN) which is more and more noticeable as the symptoms are clear As Gartner notes we have digital tracking over the years to compare where he was 20 years ago and now how his functioning has deteriorated that is not explained by advancement of age And the stress of the presidency is obviously accelerating his dementia and psychopathy
The interview exposes the reasons why we are making many of the observations of Cheeto who is clinically described as a malignant narcissistic who is a sadist, unable to love, and having no remorse of past criminal behavior Epstein shared the same psychopathy
(The following, which I have yet to write, is why we are destined to lose.)
Currently, it’s Thursday evening after a long day, a couple of weeks past this article’s publication. Things in congress have happened, and no longer continue to happen, for now.
I did try to wade through the article. The author had me until the “why does everyone think using this now dubious example is a good idea,” Stanford Prison experiment.
Still, The basic premise is painfully true. Say something long enough and loud enough and it becomes the truth.
However, the conclusion to the article is, um, let me look…uh…wait a moment, something about reposting something, and getting behind someone who no matter how hard I try I cannot remember the name of…and, oh that was it.
Hi there, thanks for the feedback!
I'm curious on your stance on my utilization of the Stanford Prison Experiment. The experiment has been highly challenged for a number of reasons, such as the later found unneutral interactions between the researchers and the individuals, along with the bias involved in the selection process given the individuals most likely to answer to the ads would likely already have psychological traits that would make the observed behavior more likely. However, my use of the experiment was not for the purpose of validating its conclusion, nor did it rely on its validity. Rather, it is used as an example of precisely what happens when you have individuals being repeatedly told to be cruel by an outside source, something that did happen in the experiment (and part of the reasons for challenging the results), as well as how being placed in such an environment can cause individuals who are generally normal to become cruel (potentially manifesting traits that may have gone "dormant" forever), again, evidenced by the experiment regardless of the validity if its conclusions. Do you think that if an experiment is found to have flawed conclusions due to its methodology that everything about it must be discarded as useless? Personally, I believe that you can discard the conclusion and yet evaluate whether there is useful insight that can be gathered from the experiments' shortcomings.
Finally, on my conclusion, given that it's a close scoped analysis/comparison on information/psychological warfare and how the left seems to be mistakenly thinking that street protests can defeat the rights' use of social media, I understand how it might have felt lacking in closure at the end given my advice. If you'd like something that's a lot more hands-on, I invite you to read my plan for dealing with the shutdown, as I offer a much more active course of action there:
https://americanmanifesto.news/p/fighting-fascism-the-battleplan-to-break-the-regime-tldr (this is the TLDR version of the plan, but it includes a link to the full rationale should you be interested in wading through it 😉)
Hi!
You said a lot in your response. I'm not sure that I'll get to address all your points, because they disappear above my words the more I write. I already lost a fairly long reply because it didn't save as I sent back to refer to your words. So here goes.
Narcissists do know what reality is which is what keeps them deliberately masking their own fragile identity. They've often become quite adept at covering up their extreme vulnerabilities and portraying the very picture of confidence and strength though they're deathly afraid of having that exposed. On top of that they are pathological liars, even to themselves, so they can appear very convincing to others.
What if people aren't self-destructive, as you say, so much as "ill-equipped" to cope with their distress, and are afraid, and simply running to who or what appears to be have the answers and who makes them feel safe (enter the "strongman!" who some say only comes along every 100 years or so!). I believe the MAGA people were already spread out in the sphere, but a larger-than-life figure gave them a place and a person around which to gather, who started saying the things previous to his arrival that they only talked about, quietly, amongst themselves. Imo, MAGA didn't just arrive; they've only come out of hiding and become publicly emboldened, having found a delusional slogan behind which to rally, Make America ... , well you know. They're all too happy to stand behind and beside their adopted spokesperson. The tragedy is that we didn't do better than to just teach "tolerance" of those seemingly different from each of us; we should have been preaching love of our fellow man. But that's another text perhaps. At this point that is too big a leap for some to make in this climate, but it's still worth planting the seed.
When in great fear, and perhaps in times of great confusion and uncertainty, and when there seems to be no clear choice (as in the pre-2024 election), people will do the fight, flight, freeze or fawn behaviors. 70M people didn't even vote! (Freeze) Trump's cabinet and the GOP Congress clearly fall into the fawn category. If not too entrenched, they can potentially be reasoned with, especially if the results of that choice are leading to disappointment (some GOP Reps joining in to sign the Discharge Petition re the Epstein files). You get the idea.
This is where it's my hope that we all do still stay as engaged as possible and do stay open-minded and even provide a safe place for the ex-MAGAs to land. I see them as basically, scared, lost sleep, who didn't realize they ran right toward the darkness and further danger, reflexively, in many instances. We do have to increase our base, but even just for the sake of humanity, we need to consider that timing, wording and non- judgment are essential before their coming back to the fold can occur, and further demystifying ourselves to one another. Of course, not everyone will be able to shift alliances or blend groups, given their own personal, psychological make up, and any guilt they may carry, but we have to allow for the opportunity.
I'm all about open discussions, but the other person has to have represented the ability to express themselves and their POV well enough to keep me engaging with them. When people are on the same side, in general, I don't see the reason to take the argument to the mat, however. And at other times I might see there's no point in elevating the conversation to one of pure logic or reason if somebody appears to be coming from a place of pure emotionality. Even then, though, I could decide to meet them at that place and acknowledge having felt that way at some point and time, which can help us move our thoughts to what we have in common because in the end that's what matters most.
I applaud you for taking the time to engage with people and for being open-minded. It's likely why I engaged with you in the first place.
Be well!
I hate when that happens (losing your comment draft). Recently I’ve begun typing long comments in notepad/word to make sure they can’t go anywhere just because I accidentally clicked out of it or something else. Anyway, I digress…
I couldn’t agree more on the need to provide safe off-ramps to those in MAGA. I also couldn’t agree more how many in MAGA are not inherently white-supremacists or theocrats, but rather disillusioned individuals who saw in MAGA their only hope, which means that those of us who are not in MAGA have failed to “sell” a better option.
If you were to distil my writings, I think it would be 1/3 about the ills of the MAGA ideology, 1/3 about the failures of modern liberal democracy/neoliberalism, and 1/3 how do we rebuild our democracy so that people don’t have to live in all sorts of despair and be driven towards ideologies like MAGA.
I honestly believe that the only way we can truly defeat the MAGA threat is by committing to putting an end to the very neoliberalism that birthed the perfect fertile ground for the MAGA ideology to grow. It has been our failure to build a society where everyone can prosper, rather than just those at the very top, which has created the resentment and moral vacuum that allowed for men like Trump to rise in power.
And it is in this respect that the mission becomes almost overwhelming. It feels as though I’m trying to defeat both sides of the same battle, not only to pushback against the MAGA ideology, but also against the neoliberal ideology which still remains intent on its refusal to surrender. It may be that sometimes I might come across too harsh or abrasive. But I have, for the moment, decided that I would rather err on that side than on the side of appeasement, as that has been the modus operandi of both sides, i.e., to appease their own.
So, I hope that if nothing else, that my strategy is clear and coherent to others, even if they don’t always agree with them.
You really have a great way of expressing your thoughts so they come across clearly. I didn't find your statement harsh. I got that you were meeting a certain energy with that same energy. Everyone has their own style of getting their point across, perhaps depending on who, or what statement, they're facing.
I can't help but wonder if there isn't a (possibly very) messy place between a fixed stance and appeasement, that doesn't even have to involve compromise.
There's a book (can't think of the title rn) I'm told on how to defeat totalitarianism (by Hannah Arendt) and the premise is based on people truly listening and talking to one another from a "sincere" place. So somehow each of us may have to learn to be able to stop wanting to be right, stop arguing with one another and stop seeing labels first and instead choosing to be vulnerable with one another, sharing our true feelings (fears, doubts, dreams, disappointments, dreams, etc.), approaching with a childlike curiosity.
I hope this world can get there.
Peace!
Outstanding article!!! I think there is more to do on the left to be prepared if violence does come to pass!!
Something else to think about. How do you reach people who have stopped reading books and news articles and are now dependent on short visual and oral stories to get information? Not with complicated policy statements. It’s sad that we have to dumb everything down to an emotional message, but that’s where we are.
Picket signs AND, not or.
What precisely do the picket signs do exclusively?
I don't have anything inherently against them, but I also cannot point to a thing that makes them uniquely important or capable of accomplishing such that given the inefficiency of messaging with them (in person commitment) I struggle to see a reason for their utilization in the 21st century other than to hold on to the past as though it is a solution to the present.
I didn’t say they were “uniquely” important or effective. Nor do they need to be. I don’t believe we need to be looking for one magical perfect solution. My point is, there is no reason to dismiss, disparage or abandon one weapon in order to promote another. We need all the weapons. Both small and large. All the allies, both simple and sophisticated. Different people have different capabilities and perspectives. Different audiences respond to different things. Lots of ordinary people showing up with signs of and slogans, for example, give formal media and social continuous visual representations to feed their screens … which other ordinary people see and feel less alone, perhaps empowered to act in some small way. And those in power also see those screens. This may not feel satisfying to you - nor is it the only way to take action. But it is possible for many people, and simple exercises of free speech are necessary because our right to free speech does not exist if we do not exercise it. This is not a fight that will be won quickly, and building public solidarity through simple acts is key to creating momentum. Courage is contagious.
I didn’t say they were “uniquely” important or effective. Nor do they need to be. I don’t believe we need to be looking for one magical perfect solution. My point is, there is no reason to dismiss, disparage or abandon one weapon in order to promote another. We need all the weapons. Both small and large. All the allies, both simple and sophisticated. Different people have different capabilities and perspectives. Different audiences respond to different things. Lots of ordinary people showing up with signs and slogans, for example, feed formal and social media screens … which other ordinary people see and feel less alone, perhaps empowered to act in some small way. And those in power also see those screens. This may not feel satisfying to you - nor is it the only way to take action. But it is possible for many people, and simple exercises of free speech are necessary because our right to free speech does not exist if we do not exercise it. This is not a fight that will be won quickly, and building public solidarity through simple acts is key to creating momentum. Courage is contagious.
This is a great analysis but protests shouldn’t be dismissed outright. In Nepal, very recently, the government was brought down by mass protests, after the regime turned violent. (I’m not advocating for the reaction to that violence, where they literally burned down the government but that anger was understandable.) It has been said that if 3.5 percent of the population rises up in protest that that will defeat an authoritarian regime, but I think the point of that is lost here. It has to be almost daily protest, not the polite, every once in a while, line up the correct permits, the protest marshals etc. protests we see here. (Again I’m not advocating for violence) Mass peaceful civil disobedience brought down the British, ended segregation (but not systemic racism), helped to end the war in Vietnam, And the recent Black Lives Matter movement was probably the most powerful protest movement in the US, although it created a major backlash because, of course, this is a totally racist society, there was a major error in messaging and because of the concurrent looting, some of which was instigated by agent provocateurs. But now Americans are still too comfortable, still apathetic and afraid. I fully endorse your ideas but don’t poo poo protests as an effective tool.
All fair points. But let me tackle some of them in the interest of clarity (don't take this as a takedown of what you said, as I think every point you raised are actually valid and important given their prevalence in the resistance's "mindset" that truly deserve scrutiny if we are to succeed and your bringing them up here is a great service to the conversation):
- On Redefining Protest v. Dismissing It:
I'm not at all dismissing protests. Quite the contrary, I want people to protest. What I am challenging is this idea that seems to have been burnt into our brains that protest = marching on the streets with signs. I'd even suggest that it is precisely this pervasive paradigm that may have driven you to believe I was dismissing protests outright.
- On the Economics of Persistent Street Protests:
They are not going to happen. I have written about this in other articles, but the personal cost of persistent street protests like we saw in the 60s/70s in the U.S. make it an impossibility. Back then, people in general had a much more financially healthy life. It was much easier for a substantial amount of people to be able to take time off work to protest or to be civically engaged. Today, when we're dealing with a personal debt crisis, a home affordability crisis, a healthcare affordability crisis, an education cost crisis, etc., the social cost of pursuing a strategy that relies on getting enough people to take time out of their lives to maintain persistent protests is a pipedream of people who are just middle-class enough not to realize how many people are struggling to survive.
- On the "3.5% Rule" Fallacy:
Even Erica Chenoweth, the person who originally noted the threshold has said this is not a magic bullet. Additionally, it has been noted that this was true for revolutions between 1900-2006, but that since 2010 authoritarian regimes have done an excellent job of adapting and that the success of such revolutions has been greatly diminished as a result. Finally, there now seems to be counter-examples that have expressly defeated the 3.5% threshold (Bahrain, which failed despite reaching 6%) while the fact remains that most mass movements that succeed do so without having to each the 3.5% threshold at all. Bottom line: the 3.5% is a statistical artifact that seems to correlate with other things that lead to success, not the thing that leads to success, and as such, has no business being treated as an objective, and doing so is a recipe for failure especially when you consider my point above. Pretty useful source, by the very person who coined the 3.5% rule: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/questions-answers-and-some-cautionary-updates-regarding-35-rule
- On Modern Civil Disobedience:
The term is widely credited to Henry David Thoreau's essay—by the way, it was the first thing about politics that truly caught my interest back in high school—where he calls those who see injustice to "let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine." Given how much of society today happens in front of screens on social media and that the fascist regime utilizes that very social media to grow its hold on society, let me ask you, what is more like letting "your life be counter-friction to stop the machine": To go out on the street with signs where virtually nobody will see you, or to relentlessly disrupt the regime's ideology precisely where it most effectively grows its power? I have great confidence that Thoreau, the very man credited with the term "Civil Disobedience," would likely have written something similar to this article were he alive today.
Again, thank you for the excellent comment. It's this kind of strategic questioning that sharpens our focus and ultimately makes us all more effective.
Valid points, I don’t think this 3.5% idea is absolute. While, as I gave, as an example, the protests in Nepal that did end that regime, Nepal is a very different circumstance than the US. And while civil disobedience is not the same as protesting I don’t think our society is really capable of accomplishing any amount of large enough civil disobedience with the sacrifices that involves to be effective. So I am also open to new ideas. While boycotts are also effective, again even though the ABC/boycott worked, to a degree, as did Tesla and Target the “resistance” is splintered, unnecessarily, so even though I wish e we could marshal a powerful boycott like “Black Out the System” we are not there yet (I am being optimistic). I need to re-read your ideas to understand them better.
I think that there's objectively a massive amount that can be done by people literally just being on their phones (though this is certainly not the only thing, but definitely the easiest), from the comfort of their own homes.
How I know? The right has, in essence, built their entire fascist regime, which is based on lies and disinformation, precisely that way. So, the power of transferring information via these tools has already been proven and well beyond debate.
We can defeat them with the exact same tools. We just need to adapt the way we communicate to understand that political persuasion, contrary to our tendency to treat everything like a debate club, does not come from lectures and stats, but rather from simple ideas repeated relentlessly in cohesion by a large number of people. The left tries too hard to chase after creativity and nuance. Everyone wants to be the one that figured out the 4d chess move, to be the one that figured out some elaborate way to explain something simple, to make it all about the brains and not about emotions because we want to believe we've "evolved" beyond emotions.
And here's the thing, if we can't even do the above, which is rather simple, there's no way we're going to be able to do anything else that meaningfully changes the status quo, so trying to go for the other things first seems utterly pointless to me. And this is why I focus so much on the power of language over psychology, and why I push so hard for utilizing the most effective communication tools available, which sadly, at this point, have been largely taken over by the right, which is a different strategy for a different day.
But yeah, check out the Anti-MAGA Messaging Guide. It goes into a lot more detail about how I believe the way we communicate needs to change and how to go about making those changes.
Best damned coaching I have heard since high school football. Fight smarter not harder. "Root Hog or Die!"
Thanks! Not gonna lie, I was not expecting a football comparison, but it put a smile on my face, which is rare these days.
I understand what you're saying and I see your point, that there at least needs to be a counteracting presence on social media to have a chance, because right now, there is almost no left-wing presence. At the same time, I have to be honest: the thought of my re-creating a facebook account to do exactly this feels akin to jumping into a tank of raw sewage.
And if I were to jump in anyway, to support democracy and anti-fascist efforts, I question democratic voices being any more effective within social media than they have been outside of it, which is to say, not very. Look at fox viewership compared to nbc/abc/msnbc/cnn. fox dominated.
And when the other networks had the ability to close the viewership gap by almost exclusively covering dump—being trolled by him—at the expense of more relevant news, they chose dump, they chose money. But what it revealed of people is that they choose emotional titillation, sensationalism, over fact, whenever they're presented with a choice between the two.
I'm not trying to be pedantic or defeatist. I want to know what the greater action is. It can't merely be being there. Simple numbers won't do it. What is the proposed tactic for combatting right-wing lies if truth-telling doesn't work?
This is an excellent question—in fact it is the most important question.
Leaving the platforms is half of the issue. The other half is how we communicate in general. We repeatedly place ourselves in a defensive position when it comes to virtually everything we believe in. That is the GREATEST communication mistake we can make. I will give just one short/simple example:
When right-wingers try to attack LGBTQ+ people because they're a supposed threat to children, we can't help but jump to defend the legitimacy and LGBTQ+ people's right to exist. Or to try and explain how LGBTQ+ people aren't a threat to children. That is the trap right there, the moment you start debating their rights, the moment you start debating their legitimacy, the moment you start debating whether they're a threat:
- You have surrendered the framing to the right.
- You have legitimized their attacks as something that is debatable.
- You have inherently and unintentionally accepted that maybe LGBTQ+ are not legitimate or that they don't have the right to exist or that they could be a threat.
- You have inadvertently placed our values under "social scrutiny," while leaving the right's ideology unscathed.
Rather, what you want to do is immediately shift the debate to something like:
- If you care so much about children, why do you keep starving them by defunding school lunches?
- If you care so much about children, why do you keep killing them by taking healthcare away from children?
- If you care so much about children. why you keep covering for the actual pedos by not going after the pedos in your churches and among your thought leaders? (there's a massive prevalence of pedophilia among rightwing circles that dwarfs the anything in the left).
- If you care so much about children, why do you sacrifice so many children's lives at the NRA altar every year, making it the deadliest thing to children in the US?
---
Do you see the drastic difference between the two?
The first should be obvious: rather than trying to debate LGBTQ+ people, I immediately shifted the debate to force their supposed "values" into scrutiny. But also, importantly, look at what I did not do. I'm not trying to turn it into a lecture, or a stats powerpoint. Rather, I'm using highly accusatory language ("starving," "killing," "protecting pedos," "sacrificing) that presupposes the impact of their values on children as a given (because I know the stats will back me up, if necessary, though I will not use them unless challenged). The only time I would actually use the stats is to force the pivot on the subject. For example: I would say, ok, if you care so much about children, let's talk about the fact that thanks to your child sacrifices at the altar of the NRA, gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in the U.S., so until LGBTQ+ people become a greater threat to children than your ideology, I'm not going to play games that pretend they are. That's it, no more stats, from there on out, the debate is purely on morals, values and emotions, because no matter how much you might want it not to be so, we're all still just monkeys heavily governed by our emotions rather than our brains.
---
So, in short, the two worst things you can actually do to defend our values are:
- To debate them as though they are up for question—when rightwing ideology betrays every single "value" they try to claim
- To try and turn every debate into a stats lecture.
And unfortunately, these 2 things are essentially what virtually everyone on the left does when they try to debate ideology. You can go through all of it, whether it's patriotism, the Constitution, law & order, etc. I have virtually never met a Dem/Liberal/Lefty who properly "defended" our values rather than inadvertently stabbing those values in the back by accepting the terms of debate set by the right.
Now, there's a lot of nuance for how you follow these strategies I'm advocating for that I could never explain in a comment. I have however, written a full guide that explains the entire thing in excruciating detail and examples that I strongly recommend everyone to check out:
https://americanmanifesto.news/p/anti-maga-messaging-guide-v1
I think I read part of the linked article but didn't get a chance to go back. So basically, punchy MEMES?
That's one part of it. But definitely not all of it, and not that simple.
As far as memes go, they need to focus on HOW the cult BETREAYS their stated values. All the stuff that just directly attacks the individuals in the cult, or that attack the claimed values themselves, etc. are all just fodder for the cult.
And going beyond the memes, it's about identifying who you're communicating with and handling them properly.
- Is this someone who is a diehard fascist/theocrat/etc.? Then your goal is to crush them as publicly as possible in a way that makes an example out of them, but specifically, again, by portraying how they're a grifter/manipulator/etc. betraying the values that they proclaim to uphold.
- Is this someone who's just found their way into the cult because they're disillusioned, or because they're struggling economically, etc. and they feel like the left has abandoned them (Dems have, in fact, over the last 50-60 years, abandoned much of the working-class people)? Then you want to acknowledge their struggles, their values, show them how the right has betrayed those values, and invite them to help build a better left, while acknowledging the ways in which Dems have in fact betrayed working people over the last few decades by pandering to corporations.
So, yes, memes are a part of it, but hardly all, and there's a lot to consider even when it comes to memes. It's not about just yelling and attacking like a rabid person. It's about being strategic on the way you craft your messaging, so that it creates wedges in the cult rather than uniting the cult. It's also about understanding how MAGA is not a monolith and how there's a lot of dissonance between the factions that make up MAGA that we can exploit in our messaging (especially when it comes to memes). I've also written a short article on those differences and a full book-length series on how these factions have converged into what we have now over the last 50 years.