Surrender Is for Slaves, but You Cannot Counter the Enemy on Its Own Turf, Either

What can be done instead?

Fighting is nearly always available, but victory is hardly ever guaranteed. In order to develop strategies, you are certainly well aware that you must carefully choose the ones that are suitable for you and applicable to your enemy’s weakness(es).

---

What’s the problem?

The subject is encyclopedic and the fight is apocalyptic. The subject itself goes back at least to Sun Tzu, whose The Art of War remains a classic even after 2,500 years:

https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

Still, it’s always worth reconsidering one’s options as the situation keeps changing most of the time. The enemy’s reach is expanding, people are getting older, poorer, and weaker, while the light of life is becoming overshadowed more and more by some impenetrable darkness. One must make decisions and preparations, while there is time for those, because there won’t be much time to do it, when the time arrives.

So, what about winning?

Already Eric Berne noted in his 1964 bestseller, Games People Play¹, that the one who initiates a game, always wins, if their rules are accepted by the other party.

One cannot counter the enemy on their own turf. The rules of engagement must be respected, but fat chance.

The globalist enemy doesn’t even engage you in a fight, unless you can make a difference. During the plandemic, most people who were considered inconsequential by the “authorities” were successfully muzzled, distanced from each other, or even “tested” or injected with a depopulation brew, and only a few put up a fight, risking their livelihood or even their lives. Those few understood that they were losing their lives, anyway. More and more people also understand that the plandemic was only a warmup for what’s coming².

The opponents’ strategies

Once you challenge the enemy’s belief system, their lackeys and useful idiots usually jump into one of seven categories:

1. change the topic;

2. attack you ad hominem (categorizing, name-calling etc.);

3. engage in mind-reading and psychologizing (e.g. “you seem to suffer from a lack of intimacy”);

4. spurt out a word salad;

5. turn to analogy instead of sticking to the actual case (it can confuse most people, because only about 7% of people can think logically a few steps ahead, while the rest rely on analogies, that is, make their decisions on situations that were resolved previously and resemble the current one);

6. provide no response (they tell you, “it’s too complicated to explain”) or tell you you are incompetent to understand it;

7. rephrase what you’ve said that turns you into a feeble opponent (they use the “so-you’re-saying” straw-man argument);

They divert, consolidate, and aim at wiping you out, while trying to discredit you among your supporters³.

What gives?

In my experience, the only way to convince someone is by showing them that what I’m talking about is good for THEM. They usually don’t give a hoot about what I think or whatever argument I have at hand. In my Substack, the only parties I am working on convincing is the globalist technocrats, their enablers, and their enforcers. Only they have the power to change things for the better.

One might say, the only way to win is by not playing, which is certainly true for the globalists’ game, because they are not even interested in your point of view. In everyday situations, it’s even better to ignore the first challenge and initiate a counter-game. If the opponent is inexperienced enough, you can easily win. Other than that, when somebody wants to annihilate you, it’s not a game anymore, and you have only one way to handle the situation, and I am not talking about fight/flight/freeze. You must be prepared for that situation, because at that point, you indeed will not be “playing.”

By fighting back, you might gain time (which is often what one needs) or even if you lose the first fight, your enemy is likely to choose a weaker opponent, if you never give up. Surrender is for slaves.

Choosing one’s battleground is one of the prerequisites for winning.

Keeping an eye on your objective is even more important than who is right and who is wrong, when the battle is only a diversion by the enemy, as was so often the case during “covid”:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/who-is-right-and-who-is-wrong

And more often than not, most public disputes are still following the same pattern.

As far as I can see now, only the person can draw the line as I did, and as concerted/centralized opposition is impossible, I can only hope that all those people who are still human will arrive at the same conclusion:

1. In my opinion, this is the best of all best-sellers in psychology. Most public libraries have several copies of it and when I first read it, I was done in a couple of hours (it’s fascinating and I would never give a college degree to anyone who doesn’t read and understand it), but remembered most of it several decades later. It has its limits with its behaviorist approach, but it is applicable in the overwhelming majority of all cases, because people think and act based on their primary and secondary socialization, which amounts to a nearly indomitable level of conditioning. Berne’s transactional analysis is based on what used to be “traditional American culture” in his days, and it also has its limitations, when applied to other cultures.

Most people still have little understanding how they are destroying their own and each other’s lives…

2. https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/this-is-how-it-will-go-down

3. Fair disputes are possible, but the conditions for them can hardly ever be met. Steve Kirsch’s challenges clearly demonstrate the reasons why such encounters fail (it makes no difference if Steve is the challenger or he is being challenged):

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/steve-kirsch-is-challenging-again