Cicero and the 5th column

This is about the art of war. I came upon two quotes on it.

Before getting onto the Cicero quote, the first looked at all conflict being about domination, the real goal of combatants of all hues. Whether it’s men and women in relationships, using the weapons which come most naturally or whether it’s State upon State, the tactics are always the same … and twofold:

The historical feminine [not women per se]

If the enemy is still strong, then use subterfuge, falsely allying oneself, ingratiating oneself, using allure and enticement, whispering sweet nothings, undermining from within, building strength from within and then starting to sow the seeds of doubt, making the other start to doubt, rotting the structure from inside.

A religious analogy is the serpent in the garden. A political example is Common Purpose.

The historical masculine [not men per se]

This is what is known colloquially as “maximum prejudice”. If the enemy appears to be weak or showing signs of weakness, then switch from the soft tactic to the hard and use all available force to blast enemy resistance.  In other words, turn savage, blitzkrieg the enemy.

A political analogy in film is Lord of the Ring’s amassing of the armies of orcs at the citadel and the thumping of spears on the ground to strike fear. Also the Zulu tactic. Also the ISIS tactic in rushing their videos of murders to our eagerly awaiting, captured MSM to get to you to view and enjoy as fast as poss.

And now to Cicero’s quote – it requires no further comment from me:

cicero 1

cicero 2

cicero 3

cicero 4

6 comments for “Cicero and the 5th column

  1. The Jannie
    February 4, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    Did someone bring up politicians?

    • February 4, 2015 at 8:46 pm

      String ’em up is better.

    • Viscount Rectum
      February 4, 2015 at 9:33 pm

      As in vomit ?

  2. James Strong
    February 4, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    Sorry James, it requires a lot more comment because your post is not at all clear.
    The major question you leave unanswered is ‘Who do you think the traitors are?’

    A lesser point, but not trivial, is your first word ‘this’. Your meaning will be much clearer if you say what ‘this’ is very close in the sentence to the use of the word ‘this’.
    Or fill it out by saying ‘This post arises because of something I read from a correspondent discussing ‘x’.’

    Please don’t drop hints or leave your readers to draw their own conclusions if you’ve got something important to say.

    French post-structularists might claim that difficult ideas need to be expressed in opaque language. I think that is, using a non-technical term, rubbish.

    • February 4, 2015 at 8:45 pm

      Quite right and I’ve rewritten it, hopefully better.

  3. Hereward unbowed.
    February 5, 2015 at 1:40 am

    In these times of “universal deceit” as Orwell so vividly had it, there are so many to choose from, I’d hardly know where to start but I know the traitors and Judas creatures are everywhere but also that, the enemy is through the gates – now it is only a matter of time.

    Drifting as one does, reading about the poor fellow who was sent to his death, thrown off a building for being of “the people of Lot”, stoned when he hit the ground and me thinking – I ‘hoped’ – if that could possibly be the correct term – that, he died as he hit the ground. And then on the other act of depravity, burning – burning! for the mercy of GOD! – a courageously brave but very frightened man, burnt to death, imprisoned in a metal cage.

    If these types of execution were to happen here, Britain geographically and in the abstract – metaphysically is not so far away from Isis. Indeed, would the locals bat an eyelid if suddenly next Wednesday they started throwing gay men off the buildings of Tower Hamlets, worryingly – I think not.

Comments are closed.