How David Beats Goliath

[Grayling813]

How David Beats Goliath
When underdogs break the rules.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009 ... ts-goliath

Long article from 2009, well worth reading and thinking about what is being explained and how it can be applied.

Useful information for troubling times.

[Jusme]

Exploiting the left’s weakness should be easy. Facts and logic, they don’t have either on their side. What they do have, is MSM, social media, censors etc..
Our best bet is to constantly be in their face, challenging them to back up their arguments with facts. If you are accused of being racist, ask for proof. Being white, is not an automatic identifier. Homophobic? Show your work. Misogynistic? Have them talk to the women in your life. You won’t change their minds, but those who may be watching will get the message. Don’t allow their tactics to dictate your response. The worst thing you can do is get into a screaming match. As a wise man once said, never argue with a fool, those who are watching, won’t be able to tell the difference. JMHO

[chasfm11]

Exploiting the left’s weakness should be easy. Facts and logic, they don’t have either on their side. What they do have, is MSM, social media, censors etc..
Our best bet is to constantly be in their face, challenging them to back up their arguments with facts. If you are accused of being racist, ask for proof. Being white, is not an automatic identifier. Homophobic? Show your work. Misogynistic? Have them talk to the women in your life. You won’t change their minds, but those who may be watching will get the message. Don’t allow their tactics to dictate your response. The worst thing you can do is get into a screaming match. As a wise man once said, never argue with a fool, those who are watching, won’t be able to tell the difference. JMHO

This.

[srothstein]

Exploiting the left’s weakness should be easy. Facts and logic, they don’t have either on their side. What they do have, is MSM, social media, censors etc..
Our best bet is to constantly be in their face, challenging them to back up their arguments with facts. If you are accused of being racist, ask for proof. Being white, is not an automatic identifier. Homophobic? Show your work. Misogynistic? Have them talk to the women in your life. You won’t change their minds, but those who may be watching will get the message. Don’t allow their tactics to dictate your response. The worst thing you can do is get into a screaming match. As a wise man once said, never argue with a fool, those who are watching, won’t be able to tell the difference. JMHO

The problem with this argument is that people in general are not logical. This is why and how the left grew so strong to begin with. People are emotional and respond to emotional appeals. I am sure we have all talked with someone and mad a strong logical argument and gotten a response of "I don't care, that is someone's son/daughter/mother/father/etc. that is hurting and needs help.

The left's biggest advantage, IMO, is the lack of thought on the part of the general public. How many people truly understand our finance system? How many people have you talked to who, right after they complain about high taxes, will argue for something and say the government should pay for it?

If we want to win politically, the way to win, IMO, is to frame the question in a way where the emotional arguments favor the side we want. When the logical and emotional arguments both favor us, we win. A word of caution on this though. Most people are not as passionate about freedom and responsibility as us. They are compassionate and want to help others, even when it is at a cost to themselves (how many people jump into dangerous waters to try to save a drowning person?).

In addition to the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition, we must consider the people who will make the decisions (the voters). They have their own strengths and weaknesses.

[The Annoyed Man]

Arreguín-Toft was analyzing conflicts in which one side was at least ten times as powerful—in terms of armed might and population—as its opponent, and even in those lopsided contests the underdog won almost a third of the time.

Political will is everything. If Goliath doesn’t have it, he can’t beat David. All David has to do is outlast him.

[The Annoyed Man]

This is. Really great article!

It isn’t surprising that the tournament directors found Eurisko’s strategies beyond the pale. It’s wrong to sink your own ships, they believed. And they were right. But let’s remember who made that rule: Goliath. And let’s remember why Goliath made that rule: when the world has to play on Goliath’s terms, Goliath wins.

Insurgencies are so often successful because they don’t play by the establishment rules. The guy in the picture in my previous post understands this instinctively.

[Grayling813]

The guy in the picture in my previous post understands this instinctively.

Yep, that guy, his friends and families have beaten back two superpowers military might.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

The guy in the picture in my previous post understands this instinctively.

Yep, that guy, his friends and families have beaten back two superpowers military might.

At least three superpowers. Don't forget the British Colonial Empire in the mid 1800's.

[Paladin]

Great read! Thanks!

This part is classic:

George Washington did the same in the American Revolution, abandoning the guerrilla tactics that had served the colonists so well in the conflict’s early stages. “As quickly as he could,” William Polk writes in “Violent Politics,” a history of unconventional warfare, Washington “devoted his energies to creating a British-type army, the Continental Line. As a result, he was defeated time after time and almost lost the war.”

There is this propaganda about the American Revolution that creating a professional army won the Revolution and the untrained militia couldn't fight... that is a total lie. If you follow the history of the battle at Lexington or Battle of Kings Mountain or Cowpens the militia was often able to strike devastating defeats against the British Empire with minimal cost in terms of lives and money simply by not playing by the British rules.

The militia scored again big time in the war of 1812 at Battle of New Orleans

It is pointed out that militia would only serve for a few days or weeks at a time, but in fact militia in most ways are far more persistent in holding ground in that they live and work in their local communities. Militia are ALWAYS THERE to defend their community and have a personal stake in it. Professional soldiers are only there when they get fed and paid. Many professional soldiers might rather be somewhere else.

[Grayling813]

Great read! Thanks!

This part is classic:

George Washington did the same in the American Revolution, abandoning the guerrilla tactics that had served the colonists so well in the conflict’s early stages. “As quickly as he could,” William Polk writes in “Violent Politics,” a history of unconventional warfare, Washington “devoted his energies to creating a British-type army, the Continental Line. As a result, he was defeated time after time and almost lost the war.”

There is this propaganda about the American Revolution that creating a professional army won the Revolution and the untrained militia couldn't fight... that is a total lie. If you follow the history of the battle at Lexington or Battle of Kings Mountain or Cowpens the militia was often able to strike devastating defeats against the British Empire with minimal cost in terms of lives and money simply by not playing by the British rules.

The militia scored again big time in the war of 1812 at Battle of New Orleans

It is pointed out that militia would only serve for a few days or weeks at a time, but in fact militia in most ways are far more persistent in holding ground in that they live and work in their local communities. Militia are ALWAYS THERE to defend their community and have a personal stake in it. Professional soldiers are only there when they get fed and paid. Many professional soldiers might rather be somewhere else.

And don’t forget the power of one man:
viewtopic.php?f=81&t=37759&hilit=Jack+Hinson