Radical Playbooks, Old War Tactics, and the Growing Strain on American Civic Order
Recent reporting described a self-identified Antifa activist in Minnesota calling for armed citizens to confront federal immigration agents, describing those agents as “mass murderers” and “fascists.” While the individual incident itself may fade from headlines, the ideas behind it deserve serious attention.
This is not only a debate about immigration policy. Americans disagree on immigration, and that disagreement is normal. The deeper issue is how political conflict is increasingly framed, escalated, and pushed toward confrontation rather than resolution. That shift carries real consequences for stability, public trust, and national sovereignty.
To understand what is happening, it helps to look at three sources of influence that repeatedly appear in modern radical movements: Rules for Radicals, The Communist Manifesto, and The Art of War.
A Real-World Example Playing Out Now
The concerns outlined in this op-ed are not theoretical. They are already playing out in real time.
According to reporting by Fox News, a self-described Antifa activist in Minnesota publicly called for “armed men” to confront federal immigration agents, referring to those agents as “mass murderers” and “fascist occupiers.” The comments followed a fatal shooting connected to a federal immigration enforcement operation and spread rapidly online.
In recorded statements, the activist urged others who were armed to “show up” and take action, framing the situation as a moral emergency that justified confrontation. While acknowledging personal legal limits on firearm possession, the repeated message to others was clear: direct, armed resistance was being encouraged against federal authorities carrying out lawful enforcement duties.
This episode illustrates how quickly political rhetoric can move from criticism of policy to calls for confrontation. The language did not focus on legislative reform, court challenges, or elections. Instead, it framed enforcement itself as illegitimate and violent by definition, positioning federal agents as enemies rather than public servants operating under the law.
That framing matters. Once enforcement is portrayed as inherently criminal, escalation becomes easier to justify. The debate shifts away from how laws should be changed and toward whether laws should be obeyed at all. This is the moment when disagreement begins to strain civic order.
Where the Line Actually Is
America has always allowed protest. Civil disobedience has also played a role in correcting unjust laws. The difference between healthy civic action and what concerns many Americans today comes down to purpose and direction.
Protest seeks to persuade the public and influence policy.
Civil disobedience highlights injustice while accepting legal consequences to expose flaws in the system.
System breakdown begins when actions are meant to weaken public trust, delegitimize institutions, and replace lawful processes with pressure or confrontation.
A republic can survive disagreement. It struggles to survive when large numbers of people are encouraged to believe the system itself must be dismantled rather than corrected.
Rules for Radicals and the Use of Disruption
Rules for Radicals is often presented as a simple organizing guide. In practice, it promotes power gained through pressure, confrontation, and disruption. Its framework treats conflict as a tool and stability as an obstacle.
The book emphasizes forcing institutions into defensive positions, personalizing political opponents, and sustaining pressure until the system bends or breaks. Over time, this approach corrodes civil discourse. Persuasion gives way to escalation. Compromise becomes weakness. Institutions are no longer imperfect structures to be improved, but enemies to be exhausted.
Many modern activist tactics mirror this approach. Outrage campaigns, constant moral framing, and institutional delegitimization are no longer exceptions. They are routine. The long-term effect is declining trust and growing instability.
The Communist Manifesto and Permanent Conflict
Alongside Alinsky’s tactics, many modern narratives resemble themes found in The Communist Manifesto. Central to Marxist thought is the idea that society is defined by permanent conflict between groups, and that political and legal institutions exist primarily to preserve oppression.
Within this worldview, institutions are not flawed but illegitimate. Law is not reformable but corrupt. Authority is not accountable but tyrannical. Stability itself becomes suspect.
When this lens is applied, escalation becomes logical. Enforcement is no longer viewed as the execution of democratically passed law, but as an occupying force. Once that belief takes hold, confrontation feels justified rather than dangerous.
Why Law Enforcement Becomes the Focus
Law enforcement is often targeted because it represents the visible edge of authority. Legislators write laws, courts interpret them, but officers enforce them. That makes enforcement easier to personalize and emotionally frame.
By focusing anger on enforcement rather than policy, attention shifts away from legislative responsibility and toward confrontation. Over time, this teaches people to associate order itself with oppression, rather than separating enforcement from debate over the law.
This damages public trust and makes it harder for society to function, even when reform is genuinely needed.
What The Art of War Explains About Today
Many of the patterns seen today closely follow principles from The Art of War. This ancient text is not just about military combat. It focuses on weakening an opponent through psychology, division, and perception rather than direct conflict.
Sun Tzu taught that the greatest victory is achieved without fighting. Instead, the opponent is weakened internally until collapse becomes likely.
In modern America, this appears as constant attacks on trust in institutions, framing government as inherently corrupt, and encouraging citizens to see one another as enemies. A nation divided against itself becomes unstable without any external attack.
Another key principle is controlling perception. When emotion replaces facts and moral outrage replaces legal analysis, public reaction becomes predictable and easily manipulated.
Division is central to this strategy. A united people are strong. A divided people are vulnerable. Encouraging identity-based conflict and permanent grievance weakens national cohesion.
Provocation also plays a role. Inflammatory language is often used to provoke reactions. Those reactions are then framed as confirmation of tyranny, reinforcing the original narrative and escalating tension.
Foreign Adversaries and Amplified Division
Not all division is organic. Foreign adversaries have openly stated that weakening American unity is a strategic goal. This does not require directing movements or controlling individuals. It requires amplifying existing tensions.
By boosting extreme voices, spreading emotional narratives, and rewarding outrage with attention, adversarial actors accelerate distrust already present in society. The objective is not persuasion. It is exhaustion—making consensus feel impossible and stability feel unattainable.
This strategy works especially well in open societies where disagreement is visible and free speech allows ideas to spread quickly.
Social Media as the Delivery System
Social media accelerates these dynamics. Algorithms reward speed, emotion, and engagement. Extreme language travels farther than careful explanation. Outrage is amplified. Restraint is ignored.
This does not require malicious intent from users. It is a structural incentive problem. Over time, escalation becomes normal, and calm debate becomes rare.
What the American Model Actually Is
The American system is not built on permanent conflict. It is built on the idea that imperfect people can resolve disagreement through structured processes without tearing the country apart.
It assumes laws will sometimes be wrong and must be debated.
It assumes enforcement is necessary for order.
It assumes institutions can be corrected rather than destroyed.
It assumes reform is ongoing, not revolutionary.
That balance depends on citizens believing the system is worth preserving even while pushing to improve it.
Intent Does Not Cancel Consequence
Many people involved in radical movements believe they are acting morally. Intent alone, however, does not determine outcome. Movements must also be judged by what they normalize and what they produce.
History shows that societies do not collapse because people disagree. They collapse when disagreement turns into permanent hostility and confrontation replaces civic process.
Bottom line
What we are witnessing is not a single incident or isolated activism. It reflects the convergence of disruptive political tactics, ideological justification, and long-standing strategic principles that prioritize division and destabilization.
Rules for Radicals provides the tactical approach.
The Communist Manifesto provides the worldview of permanent conflict.
The Art of War provides the strategic logic of weakening a society from within.
Together, they form a model that treats disruption as progress and instability as virtue.
That model stands in direct opposition to the American tradition of lawful reform, constitutional governance, and civic responsibility. The average American understands this instinctively.
Bottom line: a nation that recognizes how division spreads is far harder to fracture. Clarity, restraint, and civic responsibility remain America’s strongest defenses.
Disclaimer
This op-ed is offered for education and public discussion. It examines ideas, rhetoric, and historical influences, not individuals or groups as a whole. References to historical texts are used to explain similarities in tactics and thinking, not to claim coordination, intent, or uniform beliefs.
Nothing in this piece opposes free speech, peaceful protest, or lawful political activity. Americans have the right to disagree and to seek reform through constitutional means.
The focus here is on outcomes and consequences, not personal motives, and on preserving civic order, public trust, and constructive debate.
