A long post, but one of the most insightful ones on the subject. It came from a military historian.

They're not nuts, it's important to recognize that. They're not crazy, they are just engaging in a Melian Dialogue.

The history of the world is divided into collectivist groups attempting to dominate one another for the sake of power. The purpose of all systems it to perpetuate the collective power that is in control. This is their fundamental principle: All is defined by the power you have and your will to use it. Thus: Seize, Clear, Hold. Everything comes from that. Every argument, rationalization, contradiction, justification, policy and outright lie they've ever made is based upon that above all other things.

Leftism is difficult to understand as a philosophy of ideological doctrines because the ideological principles seem nearly to be in contradiction to each other. Racialism is counter to classical Marxism, classical Marxism is counter to Post-Modernism, Post-Modernism is counter to Racialist narratives, ect. It shouldn't make sense when you try and look at the corresponding foundational philosophies in isolation. You can read Marx, Lennin, Stalin, Mao, Engles, Castro, Foucout, Derredia, Bidal, ect, you won't exactly get a general good idea of what SJW-ism, regressivism, Cultural Marxism, applied Post-Modernism, or what intersectionality is from any of them. Just bits and pieces.

But leftism is obvious from military philosophy. The most clear and identifiable description of the previously mentioned philosophies and ideologies is best described by Clausewitz. Clausewitz gives the best explanation for the philosophy behind the Social Justice movement we see today. And he's not describing an ideology: he's just defining the concept of war.

First. Fucking. Page. Emphasis his.

DEFINITION

I shall not begin by expounding a pedantic, literary definition of war, but go straight to the heart of the matter, to the duel. War is nothing but a duel on a larger scale. Countless duels go to make up war, but a picture of it as a whole can be formed by imagining a pair of wrestlers. Each tires through physical force to compel the other to do his will; his immediate aim is to throw his opponent in order to make him incapable of further resistance.

War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.

Force, to counter opposing force, equips itself with the inventions of art and science. Attached to force are certain self-imposed, imperceptible limitations hardly worth mentioning, known as international law and custom, but they scarcely weaken it. Force -- that is, physical force, for moral force has no existence save as expressed in the state and the law -- is thus the means of war; to impose our will on the enemy is its object. To secure that aim of warfare. That aim takes the place of the object, discarding it as something not actually part of the war itself.

I can think of no better description of leftist foundation principles than that. Literally nothing. "Oppressor vs Oppressed", "collective good", "post-modern definition of race", "bourgeois vs proletariat". It's all frill. All of it. All of their terms are just variable names, but the foundational general equation of leftism is war itself.

And think of the end game of leftist conflicts. It always ends in disaster, almost inevitably it ends in war and revolution. Even Orwell described a dystopian world where leftism had seized control and the only result was perpetual planetary warfare. All the revolutionary doctrine, all the tactics, all the arguments, the principle of leftism is simply war ... with out end. The revolutions never ended until everyone was dead or the government collapse. A new enemy always had to be found. Leftism is just war. A leftist who claims to wish for peace is a fool who doesn't understand the inevitable end of their ideology, and has failed to grasp that their philosophies are simply excuses, or they are simply a liar.

"That... sounds frankly scary. How does one fight an ideology whose concept is war itself?"

You win.

War is not an ideology, it is an activity. So you can do one of two things: you can win the war by defeating it, or you can win the war by surviving it's end. War must end. Perpetual wars are hard to maintain at an industrial scale, and they most optimally exist in small honor based tribal societies with fighting seasons, warrior classes, and low-kinetic warfare tactics. Perpetual war can be maintained as a form of cultural, social, and economic interaction between these smaller societies because the larger society is normally not devastated. This is impossible with a major industrialized society without the eradication of the state. So there is one inevitable outcome for the state that engages in perpetual war: death. Like a fighter who gasses himself out, he will inevitably quit, pass out, or be beaten. There's simply no alternative if you can't stop waging war. It's like being an angry drunk in the middle of the night on a city street. If you pick a fight with everyone you'll either get beat up, pass out, or go home.

So what if you are in a society that is engaging in perpetual war. Do not contribute to it. By denying it your resources, the resources and legitimacy for the state to maintain war is revoked. "My son will not join the army" "I will not pay taxes" "I will engage in civil disobedience". Such things are much more damaging when a state is engaged in a real war against an external threat. This is why people can be arrested for dodging the draft, or striking on war-central industries, ect.

For our purposes, leftists are engaging in their own perpetual war against external threats and internally against themselves. History tells us that this is always a disastrous set of affairs. Fracturing and collapse are inevitable. The societies that were able to engage in perpetual war had to maintain external threats, and have internal cohesion. As soon as the external threat disappeared, the war would turn inward and the whole thing would come down on itself. It's been true from the Assyrians, to the Mongols, to Alexander, to Napoleon, ect.

So can you win the war? Yes. All you have to do is survive. That's the key.

Okay, how do you survive and not make things worse? That's simple, and because you're here, you've already done one thing correctly.

-Meet force with force -Be outside the conquering forces before the collapse -Promote internal fracturing from the outside -Welcome those who flee

Because you're in an "evil, alt-right, incel, wrong-thinking, subreddit of reactionary fascists", consider that #2 mark checked. Just make sure that you're on the outside of the SJW racket everywhere else, and plan to get there if you are not.

Meeting force with force is simple. Don't be bullied, don't be cowed. Don't be coerced. That's literally the point of their war, so don't chose to lose it.

Promoting fracturing is easy. They are already turned on each other, so there are a million productive ways to do that from discussions, kindness, debates, mockery, and agitation.

Welcoming those who flee is how you undermine the war effort by denying it the human assets needed for the war machine to run.

See, war isn't an ideology. It's not supposed to be, that's why Clausewitz wasn't advocating for war as a political ideology. It's just an activity and it can't be maintained forever. War is a means to an end. The end is whatever your objective was. If your objective is never ending the war must come to an end, and likely with you being destroyed. If the left is principally basing their entire ideological framework on an activity that is meant to be finite, and they are hoping to make it last forever, they must fail. The point is to be outside of the area of effect when they inevitably implode.

Intersectional critical theory is a cancer on society and it's fully infected academia.