|
|
humint
|
|
|
|
|
|
HUMINT: Non-Confrontation HUMINT: In the Long War we are all in; a new religion is emerging. I call it Non-Confrontationalism. The disciples of Non-Confrontationalism preach abstinence. Not premarital or extramarital “sexual” abstinence, but “conflictual” abstinence. The best thing to do, so they say, is nothing. They seek segregation, appeasement and flawed compromises to solve fundamental disagreements – because they believe the West cannot afford a decisive victory in the Long War. Non-confrontationalists pervade politics and war. It’s always been that way, but never before did they have so many converts. As their movement grows stronger, the United States is made weaker. Ironically, non-confrontationalists are some of the brightest people serving in politics today. No matter how beautiful their argument, do not mistake their political poetry for genius. Their success delays inevitable conflicts, only differing costs, without acknowledging accruing interest. The times, they are changing… Globalization is erasing Western intelligentsia’s ability to worship peace in the face of existential threats. Nevertheless, true believers are plentiful among the cult of Non-Confrontationalism. A true non-confrontationist wonders why anyone would bother living any other way. If you’ve never wanted a ring side seat at a prize fight, you’re probably a non-confrontationalist. If a serious debate strikes you as the problem, you’re probably a non-confrontationist. Confrontation can be bloody, so why bother? Isn’t it best to avoid the mess? To be sure, winning without confrontation is a hidden art. The best non-confrontationalists win without having played the game. In short, non-confrontationalists are insatiably ambitious. What separates them from normalcy is that any opposition to their vision makes them nauseous. They cannot deal with divergent opinion – therefore, they cannot live happily in a free society. Instead of passing judgment on this peculiar breed of political animal, it makes more sense to describe and categorize them, as Darwin did with the species he studied on the Galapagos Islands. First and foremost, a non-confrontationalist is a master at the art of bluffing. Bluffing is in their DNA. Decisive victory is not something they fabricate themselves. They harvest it. Victory, when they taste it, is handed to them by their opponent who would rather abandon victory than nurture it. To win, non-confrontationalists require opponents obey familiar rules. Without an opponent’s predictable obedience to familiar rules, non-confrontationalist bluffs invariably fail. BLUFF: verb – the act of entering the mind of an opponent, in person or by proxy, to germinate doubt and or false confidence. A non-confrontationalist can’t simply bluff all the way to a throne, can they? Sure, they can, if all of their opponents obey familiar rules. What about less successful non-confrontationalists? Liars, conmen and gamblers blend enough truth to their bluff to give it believability. That the crux of it… Truth management is what separates non-confrontationalists from a liars, conmen and gamblers. For example, a non-confrontationalist King can sustain a bluff so well and for so long that the bluff becomes a national lifestyle. The cultish façade of monarchy, if properly maintained, will become a fragile national identity. Ceremony and tradition are required to reinforce a non-confrontationalist King’s bluff. A conman on the other hand, bluffs just long enough to get what they want. In democratic politics, a bluff cannot be maintained for as long as it could under a monarchy, theocracy or dictatorship. Cultish façades are constantly tested for sincerity and efficacy in a democracy. Democratic opponents obey the rule of law which is familiar to non-confrontationalists, so they can achieve incredible successes in American politics. Those successes are however limited by the fact that they are not authorized [by their own familiar rules] to murder their most persistent dissidents. That’s why democracy is demonstratively more stable than any other form of government. Without the rule of law, if a non-confrontationalist becomes a dictator, domestic peace is probable – but only after all opposition is purged. Unfortunately for dictators and their subjects, a bluff ends at national borders. In the Long War, politicians cannot measure stability in terms of a nation’s façade. In the Long War, stability must be considered in terms of the size of a nation’s bluff. The bigger the bluff, the larger the catastrophe will be when it fails. In a democracy, non-confrontation artists conceal or exaggerate their true intentions by making bogus agreements. Non-confrontationalists build the façade that precipitates their own national catastrophe. Rarely, on the other hand, could the scale of a bluff threaten the existence of a democracy. In a dictatorship, oligarchy or theocracy non-confrontationists bluff by making bogus threats and bogus agreements. Their entire system is a bluff. For the sake of national security, ignore non-confrontationalist calls for abstinence. Be conflictually promiscuous. Go out and find the biggest bluff you can, confront it... tear it down! That’s the only way Western Civilization will win the Long War we are all in. Labels: bluff, confrontation, religion, war |
