Silence By All Means Necessary
They don't debate ideology or theology, they villify individuals by name with the intent of silencing that person, by any means necessary.
And this is not an accident. This is what is taught by radical leftist and Marxist Saul Alinsky in his book,
"Rules For Radicals".
Here’s how his approach works when applied to targeting opposition:
Core Alinsky principles for attacking opponents:
1. Pick the Target
Don’t fight an abstract system (like "corruption")—pick a person or group to symbolize it.
This makes the fight personal, visible, and emotionally charged.
2. Freeze the Target
Define the opponent in one simple narrative (e.g., “racist,” “greedy,” “anti-science”).
Don’t let them shift or broaden the discussion.
3. Personalize the Target
Focus on one individual or organization rather than a diffuse idea.
This isolates them, making them easier to pressure.
4. Polarize the Target
Frame the conflict as good vs. evil, justice vs. injustice.
No middle ground—force people to choose sides.
5. Make the Enemy Live Up to Their Own Rules
If an opponent claims to value fairness, compassion, or free speech, expose them as “hypocrites” when they fall short.
Even minor contradictions can be magnified.
6. Ridicule as a Weapon
Mocking opponents can be more effective than logical debate.
Humor and derision demoralize and discredit them.
7. Keep the Pressure On
Sustain attacks until the target breaks, concedes, or withdraws.
Don’t let them rest or regroup.
The Alinsky model creates an environment where opponents are not engaged in reasoned debate but are instead isolated, vilified, and delegitimized. The end goal is not persuasion, but silencing, discrediting, or forcing concessions through public pressure and fear of reputational damage.
Last week a man on the left (whom I will not name) took my sermon about liberalism issues, clipped it, and blasted it to thousands. He wrote that he was “deeply concerned” — and then, in big bold print for everyone to see, he posted my name and my church’s name (both of which were already public). Intentions? Maybe he’ll say it was for “accountability.” I don’t buy that. I know what that move does: it paints a target. It’s meant to intimidate, to silence, and to invite harassment — and in the worst case, it invites violence.
This is the Alinsky model: don’t argue with the sermon or the argument — call out the person by name, amplify their identifying details, and let the crowd do the rest.
When people with platforms single out an individual and paint them as a villain, they’re not debating; they’re marking. Employers get called. Families get threatened. Phones ring with hate. And some people, radicalized online, move from words to action.
We’ve seen how dangerous that escalation can be. High-profile conservative voices have been targeted online and then attacked in the real world — the killing of Charlie Kirk at a public event shocked the nation and showed how online rage can become a real-world tragedy.
Mass shootings like the one at a Minnesota Catholic school that left two children dead remind us how volatile a climate of dehumanizing rhetoric and targeted outrage has become.
And public figures, including former presidents, have faced real assassination attempts amid long campaigns of demonization and exposure.
This isn’t limited to the famous. The pattern is the same whether the target has a microphone or just a pulpit: someone with a platform posts your name and your affiliation, adds moral outrage, and pushes it out to hundreds or thousands of people or in the person's case 50k followers .
The crowd amplifies. Employers and institutions — terrified of being “canceled” — react. Harassment follows. And always in the background is the risk that someone will take it further.
Is posting my name and church “doxxing”? Technically the info was public. But that’s the point: republishing somebody’s name, church, or workplace with the intent or foreseeable effect of ginning up harassment or silencing them is functionally the same thing.
Platforms and the law are starting to recognize that context and intent matter. When naming someone predictably invites a mob to their door, that’s not accountability — it’s political violence by proxy.
We need to call attention to the tactic for what it is. Stop pretending that naming people is just “raising awareness.” When you use your platform to single out an individual, you must ask: Who will see this? What will they do? Will this lead to threats, lost livelihoods, shattered families — or worse? If you care about truth and safety, you don’t weaponize personal details to score political points.
If this has happened to you or someone you know: document everything, report it to the platform, and notify local authorities if threats follow. And for those who still think public shaming is the same as accountability — remember the human being behind the name. When you turn people into targets by name, you are not doing justice. You are making a target.
Share this if you believe there is a line between criticizing ideas and naming people to silence them. We can debate theology or politics — but we cannot normalize targeting and the violence that follows.