The Radical Rightwinger’s Rules of Engagement
Fundy Fundamentals: How They Gain and Retain Control

by Lloyd Harrison Whitling

SML182 

This page presents the actual in-use rules of engagement used by the Radical Religious Right, and by conservatives in general, as gleaned from an assessment of their practices, statements and methods. Use it as a warning: they do not put up a fair, honest fight, but you will be expected to by all parties on both sides.

A rule about the religious right you may consider valid in times of conflict with them is this: Always pay attention to the true purpose behind whatever battle they have lured you into; it will never be the one expressed. Ask yourself, "What is it that they have chosen this argument to distract me from?" Discover that, and you will have enabled yourself to uncover one of their weaknesses (and they have many). Attack that weakness, and forget the argument they brought you; it is unimportant and, actually, irrelevant. (see #3A)

As paraphrased from actual practices:

The following outline contains the complete Rules of Engagement for fascists doing battle with any and all heretical opponents of God's Capital Truth. They will serve well in any frays that may engage you. The end of the Earth is nigh, and judicious application of these glorious procedures will help us bring it nigher.  

The primary rule is "Criticize, criticize, criticize: Always attack the messengers and anybody associated with them; never acknowledge the message."

1. Always attack, never respond.

   1. Remember: it feels good to win; it does not feel good to be right or honest if you do that and lose.

      1. Winning is the sole aim of all battles, whether you are a soldier in man's army or God's.

2. Never address the contents of a countering argument.

   1. Limit your scope to one single line.

      1. You cannot aim at more than one object at a time and expect to hit anything.

         1. Any two lines can be exploited, however, by claiming they contradict each other.

            1. Context does not matter, nor does it matter if their contents are unrelated.

   2. Failing that, quote some irrelevant portion out of context and bend the discussion toward arguments against that.

      1. Since readers very seldom follow up on any references given, to worry about getting caught red-handed seems ludicrous.

         1. Few readers of a discussion thread will review it or remember verbatim all that got written, and so will take your honesty for granted.

            1. Even those on your opponent's side will accept your presentation without question.

         2. New readers will also take for granted the accuracy of all your quotes and your statements of what the context was about will be accepted.

   3. Failing that, question the message itself, as to its:

      1. Value

      2. Right to exist

      3. Credentials or veracity of its author

      4. The disrespect shown in the fact of its existence

   4. Failing even that, attack the messenger and/or the author.

      1. Call him/her a "liberal".

         1. A "liberal" is anyone who disagrees with you or that you do not like.

      2. Brandish words like 'unpatriotic', 'communist', 'gay' or 'atheist' against your opponents.

         1. Mention words like 'evil', 'wicked', 'Satanic', as often as possible in reference to your opponents.

         2. Put all the burden of proof, references, a perfect accounting, etc. onto your opponents.

            1. Refuse to budge or give any kind of acknowledgement to their demands that you do your own work.
            2. If they do happen to put up a good argument, find a way to work it against them or to make it appear meaningless.

      3. Accuse them of lying, dogmatism, prejudice, immorality or any other negative charge you can contrive and make it stick in people's minds.

      4. Take advantage of any dual-meaning words you can interpret wrongly, if doing so will aid your attack.

      5. Take on the role of victim at every opportunity.

         1. Put your opponent into the role of oppressor and make him the culprit.

      6. Whenever possible, hide your own agenda by accusing your opponents of it.

         1. Always be first to do so, being careful to assure yourself of circumstances wherein it will not backfire on you.

            1. if it does backfire, find a way to blame it on your opponents.

         2. If you make a mistake of any kind, find some way to attribute it to your opponents.

            1. They will usually get so flustered they will lose track of who did what.

   5. Always view and express your concepts as polarities and never give recognition to so-called "gray areas".

      1. Examples:

         1. Morality: Right and wrong do not offer any room for neutrality.

            1. If something is not right it is wrong and must be condemned.

            2. If it is right and helps them more than you, find a way to make it look wrong and condemn it while accusing them of it.

         2. Religion: People either believe in Jesus or they are atheists.

            1. All other religions are wrong and therefore evil that must be banished.

         3. Politics: People are either conservatives or liberals.

            1. There are no true moderates

            2. You are on our side; if not, you are on theirs

            3. If you do not support the complete rightwing agenda you are a traitor no matter what if you follow your own ideals.

         4. Science and reality: Things are either natural or supernatural.

            1. If it cannot be explained in natural terms, it is supernatural.

               1. It matters not if science later unveils an explanation that works and yields great benefits, it is a lie and it is immoral and wrong.

            2. If it can be explained in both natural terms and religious terms, the natural explanation is wrong.

               1. Wrong explanations are works of Satan that must be condemned

         5. If you cannot win with facts, bury them under bullshit.

   6. Find some organization or doctrine you can attack, and then associate your opponents with that at every opportunity.

   7. Put your opponent on the defensive, and then use that to accuse them of aggression.

   8. Limit your arguments to just a few positions you can easily learn to aggressively defend.

      1. Learn to manipulate all discussions until they become about one of those positions and the related arguments.

3. Never respond to any arguments your opponents make.

   1. They are meaningless, of course, so only read their materials to look for ways to destroy them.

      1. Your goal must always remain to win at any cost.

   2. To deal with an actual argument raises the aura of acceptance.

      1. It then looks like you deemed it a worthy challenge.

      2. You risk losing face when winning is the only goal.

         1. Complain all the while about how such an asinine discussion is beneath your dignity and not worth your valuable time.

            1. Never hesitate to jump on any opportunity to support your godly views.

      3. It allows readers more time in which they may, themselves, reconsider it.

         1. You must maintain the appearance of quick and skillful wit.

         2. Most people do not actually grasp very much of what they read.

   3. Stick with this process and stay on the offensive to maintain your momentum

      1. You must maintain the appearance of quick and skillful wit.

         1. You cannot do that while manipulating ponderous facts.

      2. If something can be said about your opponent that he might say about you, be sure to be the first to say it.

         1. Then, when he says it, he will have the appearance of retaliation, or of trying to get even by mud slinging.

            1. Quickly accuse him of mudslinging

      3. NEVER stray from the course set by your agenda.

         1. Repeat the drill you have learned until you can say it without pause.

            1. Repeat even untruths if they support your aims.

            2. Lies heard often enough become truths.

            3. Never allow yourself be seen pausing to think, it makes you appear weak and uncertain.

      4. Creative use of the full array of logical fallacies will often enough so disorient your opponent that they are worth learning about and practicing.

      5. Never resort to factual information in any way.

      6. Create your own set of fallacies to accuse your opponents with.

         1. They need not be valid or logical at all.

         2. Restating actual fallacies so they support your agenda works well.

   4. Those three rules and their subsets are all you need to know.

      1. Anything else is frivolous and meaningless.

      

About Argumentation  Read this to see how it should be done, and some rules for doing so.