Sic semper tyrannis

I’m reading — and completing enjoying and learning from — Andrew Breitbart’s Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World!.  A point that Breitbart makes is that Saul Alinsky was right about the methods he used to integrate a specific political worldview into popular culture while simultaneously destroying political opponents.  (The problem, of course, was that Alinsky was a Marxist, so he identified incredibly good techniques, but used them to evil ends.)

One of Alinsky’s primary rules, a rule that was inextricably intertwined with his writing, was to use humor.  Another Andrew, Andrew Klavan, who is on the side of the angels, totally gets that:

YouTube Preview Image

Related posts:

  1. Deranged Liberal
  2. Semper Fi!
  3. ACORN’s Waterloo?
Email This Post To A Friend Email This Post To A Friend

5 Responses to “Sic semper tyrannis”

  1. on 20 May 2011 at 7:36 am Ymarsakar

    When I was reading up on some historical battles and why some militaries do better than other militaries, organization and leadership of that organization played a critical role in the success of that organization’s objectives. Alinsky looked at the Ayers bombing attempts, Left wing liberation movements like Black Panther terrorism and Patty Hearst’s kidnappers and decided that this form of insurgency would never take down the United States of America with its cultural, economic, and military unity.

    So they started working on a more insidious poison. What they could not defeat on the streets and battlefields of America with their war machines, they instead could defeat by hiring spies, saboteurs, and traitors to make us self-destruct. As Sun Tzu wrote, the highest skill in battle is to win without fighting. Which is to say, to win without having to invest your manpower and wealth into a battle. Instead, the enemy either surrenders immediately or destroys itself.

    Ghenghis Khan’s strategies were of such terrorizing might that entire towns and cities opened their gates to the Mongol invaders for fear of what would happen if they resist. Such is efficiency and pragmatism in war, and it just so happens that Khan achieved such by slaughtering boat loads of people everywhere he went: man, woman, and child. That is how war mongering tribes fight on their sea of conquests.

    Resources matter, but without an efficient organization and leadership chain, even abundant resources will be wasted for no gain.

  2. on 20 May 2011 at 8:31 am Dennis Elliott

    I am a collecter of quotes and other examples of spare and evocative writing. When I heard about Bin Laden’s overdue end I immediately thought of this quote from author George V. Higgins: “…he is deserving of attention because he is a contemptible, disgusting and reptilian excressence on the human race, odious and vile in what he did, paltry and repellent in his assurance that he merits some sort of repsect for having done it”

     I would challenge you to find or create a better description of Bin Laden.
    Geor

  3. on 22 May 2011 at 8:51 pm Earl

     
    Klavan is a genius!!
     
    What a treasure for rationality and good cheer!

  4. on 22 May 2011 at 9:55 pm Mike Devx

    Earl #3,

    God you are so right.  That video is perfection.  Rationality and good cheer indeed!  Hilarious and entertaining, and spot-on.

    I can watch it over and over just for the sheer appreciation of its mastery of this art form.

  5. on 07 Jun 2011 at 5:44 pm boxerbelle

    Ironically, I got this in an email while I was reading a letter from an inmate on death row at Florida State Prison.  He writes about about a book he is reading.   “One brother takes the throne and when he dies, instead of his younger brother taking over, the younger does.  The one advisor suggests assassination, to which the older advisor balks.  It is ironic to me.  See, they have no qualms about mustering an army and gathering forces to do battle against his brother’s army, where thousands of regular people will surely die in combat, but the idea of killing the brother is wrong?  See what I mean?  He’s the one who’s causing the problem, why force his men to die if you can cut off the head?  It’s always been that way.  I understand fighting when you have to, but it’s really about ideals and resources.  there’s not enough room for two ideologies and not enough resources for everyone’s greed.  My opinion.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.