>>First your people still have to live with themselves at the end of the day Everybody will do horrible things, nobody's going to heaven, let's get shit straight here I mean we're talking about system collapse and opposed factions fighting for power, and there's no place for the loser, winner takes all. That's what we're talking about ultimately Whatever side "my people" picked, they'll have a very hard time living with themselves if they lose. Remember bolshevicks? Well we can hardly say they were "the good guys", we can hardly say anything they did after the takeover was moral, especially when it comes to sending dissents to gulag, work them to death etc So "my people" still have to live with themselves at the end of the day yeah, if they get to see another day top begin with. And nobody wants to spend the rest of their days in a gulag or death camp gitmo type of stuff, nobody wants to lose on this one... So the morality.... Yeah why not, but victory is above morality in my list of priorities, way above The winner gets to define the world we're going to live in, to put it simply >> and second, the first to act is the first to lose the support of the middle and moderates, which are both essential in mass politics. The only strategy that beats mass politics, is mass politics. So reacting rather than acting, is essential. There's hardly any moderate left in that scenario, we're talking about radically opposed factions finally getting at each others throat with anarchy/total collapse as a background, it's not an election, it's a war Nobody's going to rescue the losers, look at germany when it surrendered after wwII, the german masses were hopeless, women got raped left and right en masse by the allies, and remaining men, soldiers, got sent to die in camps, gulags, american camps Of course allies don't brag about it and masses are mostly clueless about what really happened >>So reacting rather than acting, is essential. That's starting with the premise that you can afford a reaction/counter attack... To me that sounds very like the concept of "proportionate response" like you have to wait for the guy to shoot at you first, and then you can shoot at him... You know, those retarded european self defense concepts, where the law implicitly state that everybody is basically required to be a fucking black belt navy seal We're reacting, a tad too late if you ask me, we're reacting because we wake up to the fact that they have power, they are in charge and we're what's for dinner essentially. I mean look who's in charge There's no guarantee "we" will win, as a matter of fact we're not really well under way for victory, to say the least... Preventive measures should have been put in place, now it's too late for that >>Aside from that, the reasons people fight, or organize, or do anything together, beyond the personal (e.x. teams of all sorts are most motivated by their team mates), it is a matter of morale, which is not a small factor in any sort of competition or conflict. Bolsheviks... Islamists... Their moral values are what they are... But they sure did have enough morale to provail, morale as in esprit de corps yeah. Cults usually are strong on that