Rules for Radicals

3 ideas

1. Pick, freeze, personalize, polarize the target

   Institutions escape accountability by spreading responsibility across departments, committees and higher authorities, so an abstract target can always pass the blame along. The organiser picks one specific target, freezes it so it cannot shift blame, attaches it to a named person, and polarizes the issue into good versus bad, because people act on a clear adversary and not on a complex system. Nuance is set aside during the fight and brought back at the negotiating table.

2. Means-and-ends judged only by practitioners

   The question "does the end justify the means?" is meaningless in the abstract. The real question is always whether this particular end justifies this particular means, in this situation, for these actors. Moral scruple about means grows with distance from the conflict, so the comfortable spectator can afford purity, while the person in the fight is choosing between imperfect actions and letting harm continue by doing nothing.

3. Tactics outside opponent's experience, inside yours

   Power belongs to what the opponent thinks you have as much as to what you actually have, and confusion multiplies that perceived power. So effective tactics stay inside the experience of your own people, which keeps them confident and willing, and go outside the experience of the target, which makes it hesitate and overreact. A tactic kept too long loses both edges: the opponent learns to handle it and your own people get bored, so a tactic that drags on becomes a drag.

Save and mark ideas in the app