Rachel Corrie
The enemy has enjoyed enormous success with the Rachel Corrie controversy. The International Solidarity Movement encouraged a young women with far more idealism than sense to enter a semi-combat area and play "chicken" with an armored bulldozer. After she was accidentally crushed, the ISM and its Palestinian handlers wasted no time in trotting out pictures of a young, blonde, and blue-eyed American woman who had been, to use their words, "murdered" by an Israeli bulldozer driver.
Our side's reaction was at first entirely passive and defensive. It was pointed out that Rachel Corrie's own conduct had contributed to her death, and that the bulldozer driver almost certainly didn't see her. Then some people on our side pointed out that Ms. Corrie may have been helping to protect tunnels through which arms were being smuggled. The enemy replied by saying the dirty Zionazis and neocons were besmirching the memory of this young, idealistic, doe-eyed peace martyr. Our side was therefore dancing to the enemy's tune instead of playing our own through an aggressive counterattack.
How does one counterattack in this situation? The enemy has at hand the poignant tragedy of a young, idealistic, doe-eyed peace martyr whose fragile body was crushed by a multiton armored bulldozer. The enemy, however, provided the means of turning Rachel Corrie into OUR side's young, idealistic, doe-eyed peace martyr.
(1) Far from expressing sympathy over this woman's death, a Hamas terrorist said that he was glad it happened. "'Her death serves me more than it served her,' said one activist at a Hamas funeral yesterday. '...Her death will bring more attention than the other 2,000 martyrs.'" (Making of a Martyr by Sandra Jordan, Guardian Newspapers)
(2) Every account of the accident shows that about half a dozen ISM members watched Rachel Corrie die but not one raised a finger to pull her out of the slowly-moving bulldozer's path. Noting that head injuries may have contributed to Rachel's death, it could also be argued that ISM was criminally negligent in encouraging her to enter the bulldozer area without a hard hat.
(3) ISM was caught posting photomanipulated photographs of the events leading up to the accident.
These three pieces of evidence suggest the possibility that the ISM and/or its Palestinian handlers knowingly and willfully set Rachel Corrie up to be killed so they could make propaganda from an American citizen's death. Instead of defending against the enemy's attacks and innuendos, our side should counterattack the enemy with this accusation at every opportunity.
The concept of meeting a physical assault with an attack is a well-established military doctrine. Moltke wrote that an infantry charge should be repelled as follows:
...the firing line commences firing on command when the enemy closes to three hundred paces.
If the enemy [nonetheless] continues to press forward and threatens an assault, the two remaining companies should immediately form in column and go to meet him with fixed bayonets and shouts of "Urrah." The second battalion should advance at a run upon hearing this shout.
As for assaults by cavalry,
Cavalry should everywhere live up to the glorious tradition that our cavalry never stands to await the attack of hostile cavalry but advances to meet it, even if outnumbered.
It may be added that, about a century before Moltke's day, Frederick the Great threatened to cashier or dismiss any cavalry officer who waited passively to be charged by the enemy. If one knows anything about animals and their instincts, this makes perfect sense. A small animal can chase, bite, harry, and even kill a larger one that gives ground and runs away. On the other hand, there are stories about bears and lions breaking off their attacks or even running when confronted by unarmed humans that stood their ground or even charged the much larger predator. The animal that attacks is showing that it is confident that it can win, while the one that runs has already given up.
The same principle applies to political as well as physical confrontations. Instead of merely defending against the enemy's accusation, we meet that accusation with one of our own-- preferably a far more serious one. In the Rachel Corrie case, we accuse the ISM and its allies of deliberately setting up an American citizen to be killed to make propaganda. This counterattack must be backed by evidence but, as shown above, the enemy himself provided it.
Now consider the Islamofascists' use of the old "Jews as Christ Killers" blood libel. Replying by calling this a blood libel is merely defensive, even if it calls the enemy a liar. Calling the Islamofascists "Twenty-First Century Christ Killers" and then proving that they are indeed Christ Killers is an aggressive and decisive counterattack against which they have no defense whatsoever. It shows that, not only is our side completely unafraid of the phrase "Christ Killers," we embrace it as a weapon to expose the enemy for the barbaric savage he is.
We have so far shown how the enemy's attacks must be met with vigorous, confident, and decisive counterattacks of our own but the ideal situation involves going over to the offensive entirely. The idea is to find issues against which the enemy has no defense whatsoever, such as his abusive treatment of women and Christians.
These issues must be brought up repeatedly. Deliberately-inflammatory terms like "femicide," "rape," "domestic violence," "wife battering," "child molesting," and "Christ Killers" must be used as frequently as possible and backed up with objective evidence to prove the truth behind them. No letup must be permitted; the enemy must be attacked in this manner as frequently and as aggressively as possible. Only through these methods can the menace of Islamofascism be whipped back into the pigsty from whence it came and then kicked through the rear walls of said pigsty.
Reference:
Hughes, Daniel J. 1993. Moltke on the Art of War: Selected Writings Moltke led the Prussian Army to victory over the Danes, Austrians (1866), and finally the French (1870-1871). Moltke's army was so effective that, during the campaign of 1870-1871, it lost only one flag and four guns in comparison to the French, who lost 107 flags and almost 7500 artillery pieces. Moltke also foresaw the utility of "trucks" in the mid-19th century; these Strassenlocomotives (street locomotives) were almost certainly the steam-powered "road engines" that Henry Ford cited as his inspiration for passenger automobiles. The idea of a vehicle that could operate independently of railroads was certainly innovative for its time.
Our public relations: Think offensively and not defensively
by Bill Levinson
The Islamofascists are winning the public relations war because of Civilization's defensive thinking. Conflicts, whether military or political, are won by offense and not defense.
Helmuth Karl Bernhard, Graf von Moltke, wrote (Hughes, 1993),
Moltke adds that the offensive is the basic form of the Prussian conduct of war and that even the defensive, when it is necessary, is always active and never passive.The problem is that our side almost uniformly "awaits the law of the opponent" by reacting to the Islamofascist propaganda organs. We dance to the enemy's music instead of forcing the enemy to dance to ours.This article will consider two examples: Rachel Corrie and the use of the phrase "Christ Killers."
Rachel Corrie
The enemy has enjoyed enormous success with the Rachel Corrie controversy. The International Solidarity Movement encouraged a young women with far more idealism than sense to enter a semi-combat area and play "chicken" with an armored bulldozer. After she was accidentally crushed, the ISM and its Palestinian handlers wasted no time in trotting out pictures of a young, blonde, and blue-eyed American woman who had been, to use their words, "murdered" by an Israeli bulldozer driver.
Our side's reaction was at first entirely passive and defensive. It was pointed out that Rachel Corrie's own conduct had contributed to her death, and that the bulldozer driver almost certainly didn't see her. Then some people on our side pointed out that Ms. Corrie may have been helping to protect tunnels through which arms were being smuggled. The enemy replied by saying the dirty Zionazis and neocons were besmirching the memory of this young, idealistic, doe-eyed peace martyr. Our side was therefore dancing to the enemy's tune instead of playing our own through an aggressive counterattack.
How does one counterattack in this situation? The enemy has at hand the poignant tragedy of a young, idealistic, doe-eyed peace martyr whose fragile body was crushed by a multiton armored bulldozer. The enemy, however, provided the means of turning Rachel Corrie into OUR side's young, idealistic, doe-eyed peace martyr.
These three pieces of evidence suggest the possibility that the ISM and/or its Palestinian handlers knowingly and willfully set Rachel Corrie up to be killed so they could make propaganda from an American citizen's death. Instead of defending against the enemy's attacks and innuendos, our side should counterattack the enemy with this accusation at every opportunity.
The concept of meeting a physical assault with an attack is a well-established military doctrine. Moltke wrote that an infantry charge should be repelled as follows:
As for assaults by cavalry,It may be added that, about a century before Moltke's day, Frederick the Great threatened to cashier or dismiss any cavalry officer who waited passively to be charged by the enemy. If one knows anything about animals and their instincts, this makes perfect sense. A small animal can chase, bite, harry, and even kill a larger one that gives ground and runs away. On the other hand, there are stories about bears and lions breaking off their attacks or even running when confronted by unarmed humans that stood their ground or even charged the much larger predator. The animal that attacks is showing that it is confident that it can win, while the one that runs has already given up.
The same principle applies to political as well as physical confrontations. Instead of merely defending against the enemy's accusation, we meet that accusation with one of our own-- preferably a far more serious one. In the Rachel Corrie case, we accuse the ISM and its allies of deliberately setting up an American citizen to be killed to make propaganda. This counterattack must be backed by evidence but, as shown above, the enemy himself provided it.
Now consider the Islamofascists' use of the old "Jews as Christ Killers" blood libel. Replying by calling this a blood libel is merely defensive, even if it calls the enemy a liar. Calling the Islamofascists "Twenty-First Century Christ Killers" and then proving that they are indeed Christ Killers is an aggressive and decisive counterattack against which they have no defense whatsoever. It shows that, not only is our side completely unafraid of the phrase "Christ Killers," we embrace it as a weapon to expose the enemy for the barbaric savage he is.
We have so far shown how the enemy's attacks must be met with vigorous, confident, and decisive counterattacks of our own but the ideal situation involves going over to the offensive entirely. The idea is to find issues against which the enemy has no defense whatsoever, such as his abusive treatment of women and Christians.
These issues must be brought up repeatedly. Deliberately-inflammatory terms like "femicide," "rape," "domestic violence," "wife battering," "child molesting," and "Christ Killers" must be used as frequently as possible and backed up with objective evidence to prove the truth behind them. No letup must be permitted; the enemy must be attacked in this manner as frequently and as aggressively as possible. Only through these methods can the menace of Islamofascism be whipped back into the pigsty from whence it came and then kicked through the rear walls of said pigsty.
Reference:
Hughes, Daniel J. 1993. Moltke on the Art of War: Selected Writings Moltke led the Prussian Army to victory over the Danes, Austrians (1866), and finally the French (1870-1871). Moltke's army was so effective that, during the campaign of 1870-1871, it lost only one flag and four guns in comparison to the French, who lost 107 flags and almost 7500 artillery pieces. Moltke also foresaw the utility of "trucks" in the mid-19th century; these Strassenlocomotives (street locomotives) were almost certainly the steam-powered "road engines" that Henry Ford cited as his inspiration for passenger automobiles. The idea of a vehicle that could operate independently of railroads was certainly innovative for its time.
Posted by Bill Levinson at December 16, 2005 06:21 PM