Written after the Vietnam War during peak rage against the establishment, Rules For Radicals has served as one of the manuals for liberals in achieving power, culminating in Obama’s presidency. Surprisingly, it is light on actionable steps. Instead of telling you exactly how to start a DIY revolution, it creates an activist “mood” where you can initiate your own creative steps to affect change.
The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world into a place where all men and women walk erect, in the spirit of that credo of the Spanish Civil War, ‘Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.’ This means revolution.
I was concerned I bought a socialist manifesto, but beyond the above introduction, the politics in it were quite light. He did intend for budding socialists to implement its strategies, but it can used by anyone. Here’s what I learned from the book:
1. Keep your mob busy as you go from one issue to the next
Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move. From there it’s a short and natural step to political pollution, to Pentagon pollution.
2. Activism will not work without individual sacrifice
People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others. The price of democracy is the ongoing pursuit of the common good by all of the people.
[…]
Self-respect arises only out of people who play an active role in solving their own crises and who are not helpless, passive, puppet-like recipients of private or public services. To give people help, while denying them a significant part in the action, contributes nothing to the development of the individual. In the deepest sense it is not giving but taking— taking their dignity. Denial of the opportunity for participation is the denial of human dignity and democracy. It will not work.
3. You’re not a have-not if you’re supported by the status quo
From the Haves, on the other hand, there has come an unceasing flood of literature justifying the status quo. Religious, economic, social, political, and legal tracts endlessly attack all revolutionary ideas and action for change as immoral, fallacious and against God, country, and mother. These literary sedations by the status quo include the threat that, since all such movements are unpatriotic, subversive, spawned in hell and reptilian in their creeping insidiousness, dire punishments will be meted out to their supporters.
4. There is a cycle to revolution (see Polybius cycle)
History is a relay of revolutions; the torch of idealism is carried by the revolutionary group until this group becomes an establishment, and then quietly the torch is put down to wait until a new revolutionary group picks it up for the next leg of the run. Thus the revolutionary cycle goes on.
5. History is written by the victors
There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.
6. Cover your activism with a veneer of morality
All great leaders, including Churchill, Gandhi, Lincoln, and Jefferson, always invoked “moral principles” to cover naked self-interest in the clothing of “freedom” “equality of mankind,” “a law higher than man-made law,” and so on. This even held under circumstances of national crises when it was universally assumed that the end justified any means. All effective actions require the passport of morality.
7. Confidence is half the battle
Anyone who is working against the Haves is always facing odds, and in many cases heavy odds. If he or she does not have that complete self-confidence (or call it ego) that he can win, then the battle is lost before it is even begun. I have seen so-called trained organizers go out to another city with an assignment of organizing a community of approximately 100,000 people, take one look and promptly wire in a resignation. To be able to look at a community of people and say to yourself, “I will organize them in so many weeks,” “I will take on the corporations, the press and anything else,” is to be a real organizer.
8. Agitate for multiple issues simultaneously
Not only does a single- or even a dual-issue organization condemn you to a small organization, it is axiomatic that a single-issue organization won’t last. An organization needs action as an individual needs oxygen. With only one or two issues there will certainly be a lapse of action, and then comes death. Multiple issues mean constant action and life.
9. An effective way to jump start your movement is to be declared an enemy by the establishment
The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” The word “enemy” is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people, to identify him with the Have-Nots, but it is not enough to endow him with the special qualities that induce fear and thus give him the means to establish his own power against the establishment. Here again we find that it is power and fear that are essential to the development of faith. This need is met by the establishment’s use of the brand “dangerous,” for in that one word the establishment reveals its fear of the organizer, its fear that he represents a threat to its omnipotence. Now the organizer has his “birth certificate” and can begin.
[…]
Today my notoriety and the hysterical instant reaction of the establishment not only validate my credentials of competency but also ensure automatic popular invitation.
10. Make your followers believe that you are the agent of change
The organizer’s job is to inseminate an invitation for himself, to agitate, introduce ideas, get people pregnant with hope and a desire for change and to identify you as the person most qualified for this purpose.
11. Poor people don’t understand democracy
Many times, contact with low-income groups does not fire one with enthusiasm for the political gospel of democracy. This disillusionment comes partly because we romanticize the poor in a way we romanticize other sectors of society, and partly because when you talk with any people you find yourselves confronted with clichés, a variety of superficial, stereotyped responses, and a general lack of information.
12. Solving one problem begets another, but don’t tell your followers that
Something else that comes with experience is the knowledge that the resolution of a particular problem will bring on another problem. The organizer may know this, but he doesn’t mention it; if he did he would invite, and encounter, a feeling of futility on the part of the others. “Why bother doing this if it means another problem? We fight and win and what have we won? So let’s forget it.”
13. Show people, in the most visceral terms, how they are being screwed
14. Stoke citizen anger and then point out a logical solution that has worked in the past to solve the problem they are facing
Through action, persuasion, and communication the organizer makes it clear that organization will give them the power, the ability, the strength, the force to be able to do something about these particular problems.
[…]
The lesson here is that a major job of the organizer is to instantly develop the rationale for actions which have taken place by accident or impulsive anger.
15. You can not force a negotiation with the establishment without power
16. Those with power will not cede to your demands based on goodwill alone—they must feel threatened
17. Bluff
Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
[…]
The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
[…]
Remember the rule— the threat is often more effective than the tactic itself, but only if you are so organized that the establishment knows not only that you have the power to execute the tactic but that you definitely will. You can’t do much bluffing in this game; if you’re ever caught bluffing, forget about ever using threats in the future.
18. Make fun of your opponent
Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
19. Move fast without getting bogged down
A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings. New issues and crises are always developing, and one’s reaction becomes, “Well, my heart bleeds for those people and I’m all for the boycott, but after all there are other important things in life”— and there it goes.
20. Have a plan for when your opponent relents
The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying “You’re right— we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.”
21. Focus your attack a human or corporation, not an idea
The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community’s segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system.
22. Don’t be rigid
There can be no prescriptions for particular situations because the same situation rarely recurs, any more than history repeats itself. People, pressures, and patterns of power are variables, and a particular combination exists only in a particular time—even then the variables are constantly in a state of flux.
23. Power is in constant flux
Power is not static; it cannot be frozen and preserved like food; it must grow or die. Therefore, in order to keep power the status quo must get more. But from whom? There is just so much more than can be squeezed out of the Have-Nots— so the Haves must take it from each other.
When your fight is against a culture, it becomes difficult to identify an activist action you can take, but if Alinksy was alive, he’d recommend finding specific individuals who are engaged in the behavior that you believe is harmful. The individual is weak—attack them one at a time.
Another interesting point that Alinksy brings up is to announce your intentions beforehand, something that is the opposite of what you find in war strategy. Tell your enemy what you will do if they don’t stop and watch them plead for negotiation. As long as you can back up your threat, you may be able to affect change without even doing anything.
Even if you disagree with Alinksy’s politics, you must concede he had a powerful grasp on how to chip away at power bases. What’s incredible is that within only one generation, the status quo has been replaced by the politicians who represent those that Alinksy advocated for. They even used many of his techniques. His side won, but if his own writing is any indication, it’s not hard to remove them from the top.
Read More: “Rules For Radicals” on Amazon
There will be people who will say “oh, we can’t use ‘their dirty tactics’ that will make us just like them”.
But I compare this to a simple weapon, a gun or a knife. You don’t bring a knife to a gun fight, and neither weapon cares of the hand that wields it. If I met Alinsky I probably would have hated that socialist rat, but his principles are sound.
Absolutely, and this is why we must remember who our foe is. They have no sympathy or empathy for us, they use any tactics they want, they are disingenuous and they are the worst kind of hypocrites. They drone on and on about equality, so why not do the same thing they do to us?
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
The issue isn’t the weapon, it’s the structural logic of the strategy used.
If your strategy is premised upon gaining a mass following of idiots, then your movement is going to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Furthermore, Rules for Radicals – if I recall correctly – also argues that there’s nothing wrong with harming your base, if it ‘wakes up’ your base and makes them support you more strongly. It’s utterly sociopathic in nature, willing to sell out whatever cause you start with for the sake of winning. See White Nationalism, as an example.
That said, that doesn’t meant there isn’t quite a bit of value to be found within it – but if you follow the prescripion of the entire thing then you become a destructive leftist, whatever banner you might be flocking under.
Totally disagree on WN. It’s a belated reaction to demographic destruction. Rhodesia was a foretaste of London circa 2011. In fact WN is probably the way to exit the current malaise.
Rules for radicals is a guidebook for mouthy power seekers who want to replace characters who are, at least in the minds of these activists: racist, sexist, homophobic, militarists. That means white men 99% of the time. It’s like they want to destroy the effigy of Tom Buchanan, Henry Ford, Richard Sharpe, Harry Flashman, Sergeant York, Duke of Wellington, Nathaniel Greene, JEB Stuart and all the various fictional and historical heroes our people have produced. The consumers of these books want to send in Orcs to rape and pillage my territory.
In my experiences with them, a significant portion of WN is people who are more interested in the destruction of others, than their own survival. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… they have all the symptoms of a left wing movement, and – much like America herself – they are a dangerous friend, and a harmless enemy.
Rabbit warrens and the left always cannibalizes their own, and that’s a behaviour I’ve seen many times in WN circles.
That’s true. However it is symptomatic of deracination. I would also agree that the deification of Hitler among them ignores the fact that Hitker got a lot if white people killed (technically he wasn’t all that interested in white supremacy) and did a lot to reduce European prestige in Asia.
They also hold a “zero sum game” mentality – as opposed to the “rising tide lifts all boats” mentality of those who are tempermentally right-wing.
They utterly fail to understand that improving the lot of Blacks – getting them off the welfare system, infusing some decency and dignity into their culture, and destroying the parasitical race-baiters – would not only benefit Blacks, but ultimately benefit Whites as well.
Please give an example of blacks succeeding without affirmative action anywhere in the world, at any point of time.
Rhodesia.
Back in the depths of history, Rhodesia was a sane and civilized country in central Africa. There was no affirmative action, and the Blacks were lifting themselves up, generation by generation, under the tutelage of a more advanced civilization.
Then the UN turned against Rhodesia, they renamed it Zimbabwe, and Affirmative Action was implemented: this proceeded to destroy all the civilized gains which had occurred.
Affirmative Action has never helped anybody but the technocrats in charge; all it does is destroy.
NYC is a leftist bastion yet liberals nightmare has come true the top NYC public high school has to kick out poor Asians in order to get more black+asian.> 2.9% of the population
http://nypost.com/2014/07/19/why-nycs-push-to-change-school-admissions-will-punish-poor-asians/
There is some validity in replacing some of the characters Rules for Radicals aim toward, but the issue isn’t who (race) or why (sexist, homophobic, etc.), it’s who they are replacing it with.
You are right, some of the people who want to take charge are nothing more than mouthy power seekers and are not best fit to lead and have no concrete set of values or long-term plan–that is where the problem lies.
While I respect your decency and optimism I see blacks as congenitally incapable of maintaining a complex and attractive civilization. What you just said was Limbaugh/Hannity/OReilly snake oil. There is no Democratic plantation. The Democratic Party is a black power bloc. Obama is more like Mugabe and Idi Amin or Jacob Zuma than Jefferson Davis.
Never looked at it from that perception with Hitler, good point.
While I could give you an educated answer, to keep it short, light, and to debunk a pretty blanket statement generalizing thousands of years and multiple civilizations–I will say sports. I haven’t seen affirmative action there, just the best players.
Antifa forget that Hitler was allied with various Yellow and Brown activists against white supremacist French, British, Belgian and Dutch Imperials. Japan is the obvious one. The Japs conducted an ethnic cleansing of a very large British, Dutch, French and even American expat population in Asia. Ghandi was also Pro-Hitler. Nasser a black in the Egyptian army planned to kill Whites living in Egypt if Rommel had broken the 8th Army at 1st Alamein.
However by the time that the allies landed in 1944 in Normandy it was as a force designed to wipe out Europe as a continent for whites.
We are talking about civilizations here. I can’t think of a black run state or city I’d want to reside in. As Aurura state d they need “uplift”. Presumably from whites. It’s a total waste of effort in the long term. The money splurged on welfare, sports and education should have been spent on a moon colony or a Mars colony. Instead YT has probabLy ceded space to the Chinese.
Both Athlone here and keono galt at hawaiianlibertarian have good articles about that.
There is a long term goal. It is unspeakable though. If you are biblically minded reread how Jacob swindled his uncle Laban. “All the speckled cattle are my payment”. And I’ll have your daughter’s too in addition to your sculptures of your gods.
Maybe you rhink that because blacks have been fucked up by welfarism and the subsequent destruction of nuclear family for generations now.
That was a white supremacist state. I know a few Rhodies. The curious thing about the Rhodesians is that they had a messianic complex about “uplifting” the natives.
Then Mugabe punched them in the face and dismantled the commercial farm infrastructure Anglo-Saxons built. A black will revert to this always. See Haiti, see Detroit.
I’ll check it out.
Ancient Benin was pretty impressive
Women will naturally revert to savagery without a patriarchal influence as well – and the intermediate step is affirmative action.
I am not well versed enough to talk about every black civilization and its success or failure, but civilizations as a whole have always taken a turn for the worse, that’s why you read about them and not actually live in it. Also it is well known that the victor writes what we consider history and there are too many historical inaccuracies to even begin to take score sheet.
At this point it isn’t about race/ethinicity. Will that battle ever be revisited in our species? More than likely yes, but it will be long after our time, when this civilization collapses and our species start from scratch, again.
And the money spent on welfare, sports, and education are distributed foolishly. That’s why the discussion needs to happen in which we attempt to fix some of our insane ways.
See Black Wall Street:
The clearest example of genocide in the 20th century is actually Rhodesia. A wealthy white minority of 200,000 in a nation of 10s of millions was systematically driven out and butchered. Reduced to about 20,000 people. That’s black rule for you.
Thanks..the shame part of this and similar incidents is that nothing came of it. Some remember it as “Tuesday.”
Are you serious, they changed the way football is played so they could have black quarterbacks. If you understand how basketball, soccer, lacrosse, & hockey are played you can explain any one to someone that understands a single one, since they are basically the same games with the only difference being if short distance runs vs. upper body strength matters most. The less short distance run times matter vs upper body strength the whiter the sport gets. If you want to see basketball as white as it used to be just have the referees go by those rules.
Wasn’t this in response to something like: 28 one 1 rape
“CLEVELAND, Texas – Police say the gang rape of an 11-year-old girl was captured on cell phone video, according to a search warrant affidavit obtained by several Houston media outlets. Eighteen juveniles and adults are accused of sexually assaulting the girl at an abandoned mobile home in Cleveland, Texas.
“I’ve heard as many as 28 or more. The case now has 16, 17 people who have been arrested,” defense attorney James Evans III told CBS affiliate KHOU.
”
You have to go to news agencies from Europe to find out all the rapists where black and the victim was not.
I don’t doubt that but your response is somewhat of a non-sequitur. You initially said ‘Please give an example of blacks succeeding without affirmative action anywhere in the world, at any point of time.’ and I did. The incident I referenced took place in the roaring twenties.
It’s that mentality that got white people into the situation they find themselves now. It should be clear to most all whites now that there is no saving or building up blacks. In fact, the presence of significant black populations in western nations is destroying them. Whites will never be able to reverse the decline of their nations and communities as long as blacks are present. The left was able to successfully use the 15% black U.S. population to hijack and destroy the American political system. Blacks will always be wielded as a weapon by the opportunist politicians at the expense of civilization, decency and higher standards.
It goes deeper than that unfortunately. There’s just a tremendous genetic gulf in temperament and capability between blacks and all the other races. There will never be a successful egalitarian multi-cultural society that attempts to incorporate blacks as equal participants. The lives of blacks could be built up but only in a secondary role and never anything resembling the standards of a white only group/society. The right to vote and desegregation will eventually destroy blacks in the United States. Right now they are still feeding off the host body of the old United States. Once this wealth and order is diminished enough there will be a mass die off and chaos.
It’s unfortunate. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I like to tell myself things would have been different had they known the crimes being committed against black culture were a sign of things to come but I know ignorance is bliss. William Wilberforce said it best:
Does race play a role? Absolutely – but the only way that will change will be generations of pro-civilizational pressure (the opposite of what we currently have in the American ghetto).
What can be changed is ideology. What can be changed is Liberalism.
The rising tide lifts all boats, and a civilized state benefits all races. Rather than focusing on the differences between different groups, I’d rather focus on what all of us can do to fight the Enemies of Man who are presently preying on all of us.
Mugabe, was financed into power by Richard Van Hoogstraaten, a Jewish real estate speculator in Great Britain who poured millions of dollars into the ZANU-PF as part of a deal involving international Zionism and the Soviet Union. Van Hoogstraaten worked through the KGB to win the support of the communist rebels from left-wing Christian groups, like the World Council of Churches, who then paid guerillas to murder white children and Catholic nuns.
This might be the role model for black success, a community separated from whites. Aside from that I think this story is more proof that multiculturalism is doomed to fail.
I know a lot about football (played through college, and a ton of buddies pro now), as well as many other sports, and in this instance your “claim” is for one football position while you ignore 21+ others. And as a fact check, that is untrue. Black QBs introduced to the game went against the grain with their style of play and have only recently really been accepted and playbooks adapted for it in the last 14 years.
In general, your comments seem to have a black v white mentality, disregarding the world as a whole (Asian, Hispanic, etc). I am all about intelligent discussions, especially when it involves growth, but as I said before it’s not about race anymore and taking score doesn’t help people grow, especially when it’s plague with historical inaccuries.
I see your avatar about border closing, and while I do somewhat agree, I hope you aren’t going through life pointing the finger. Ask yourself, if I was in an all white (or whatever you are) space, would I personally be better off, competition doesn’t stop bc you’re the same race.
Agreed. As I just commented to Martel733, even if we were all in one homogeneous society (hell say purple), there would still be competition, there would still be “alphas” and “betas”, there would still be some sort of discriminatory act(s), and etc. It is human nature.
Race makes it easier to group things, but it will never change a culture.
White people ought to stop patronizing basketball and football. period. It’s psychologically similar to Cuckoldry to spend money on it. Sport should be something to do in between war. Possibly something to do on the day off from the factory. Mass spectator sport is sinister.
It’s the clearest case of an actual genocide in the post ww2 world. An actual extermination.
…over a millenium of social engineering.
That’s insane.
By what comparison? They could have built a frigging boat pushed it westward and been driven onto the coast of what is now Brazil by the trade winds.
All sports are is a diversion from the important things in life. I never have been one to watch sports already, but the years I have spent away from playing and focusing on pursuits that enhance my mind–I have grown as a human exponentially.
All men in general need to stop worshipping sports and focus on more philosophical and intellectual (war included) pursuits if we are to bring our society to another level.
I agree about multiculturalism. I would be inclined to agree with you on segregation if we [Americans] hadn’t already tried that. I think you’ve mistaken our reality with a utopian alternate reality where humans aren’t inherently evil.
The Greenwood district was one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the United States at the time of the Tulsa Race Riot, as well as one of the most successful African American communities of the 20th Century. Mind you, this was at the height of segregation in America and it didn’t stop whites citizens from destroying Black homes and businesses because they heard some black kid hit on a pretty white girl.
As @disqus_jz6GsSLVxo:disqus said in an earlier post there will always be competition, there will always be discrimination and I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a segregated society where the ‘haves’ aren’t resented by the ‘have-nots’ who have (on occasion) been white.
Ideally, the model of success for any culture, will always be a community that isn’t intentionally being destabilized by the government (e.g. Flooding black neighborhoods with drugs then declaring a War on Drugs or building housing projects where no males over 18 years of age are allowed to live)
You had to know someone was going to ask you to explain that metaphor. Could you expand? I must have missed something.
Don’t get the point about Brazil. Benin was a medieval African state, within a walled city with a quite rich culture, etc. It didn’t rival any great western civilizations, but why should it. It was viable state with a long and relatively successful history.
Give it 10 years, South Africa will be a clearer case.
Blacks, Whites, and Jews at each other’s throats, while the bastards in charge of everything profit.
You said it. Coincidentally, it reminds me of a Saul Alinsky quote:
“One of the most important things in life is that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you’re right. If you don’t have that, if you think you’ve got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated.”
One would assume RoK would be a place where men could put this race nonsense aside and learn to view other cultures objectively but nope. Every post delusional race rhetoric rears it’s ugly head. It’s getting old.
“Multiculturalism has utterly failed.” – German Chancellor Angela Merkel
Nazism was a Rothschild Operation and the leading Nazis were Sabbatean-Frankist Crypto-Jews.
The Sabbatean-Frankists hate Orthodox Jews, one of the reasons why they promoted anti-semitism, Nazism and Nazism.
*Neo-Nazism
Multiculturalism frequently results in some form of genocide.
I am interested in alternative cultures. But the more I find out about them these days the more I objectively seek to get as far away from them as possible. I do not want what I’ve seen in Lagos or Mogadishu to land in London or Paris, thank you very much.
What you showed is how hardcore our ancestors were and how easily they rolled up the Bantustans.
That’s one way of looking at it. The way I see it, had your ancestors understood the true nature of women and left well enough alone, you would still have a place to call your own today. Enjoy cultural diversity, you’re going to love it.
I’m not an American. No involvement in slavery in the family tree.
That’s okay because I never mentioned slavery or suggested you were American. Did you even read the thread or did you see an opportunity to race toll and couldn’t resist?
You sir, are a liar:
Hoogstraten was born in Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex, to working-class Catholic parents: Charles, a shipping agent, and Edna, a housewife. *His mother was of German and English heritage, his father was of *Dutch and Frenchdescent. He was educated at a local Jesuit school, but is also known to have attended Blessed Robert Southwell Catholic School in Goring-by-Sea, now known as Chatsmore Catholic High School.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_van_Hoogstraten
Turns out Hoogstraten wasn’t Jewish and had nothing at all to do w Zionism.
When you REALLY Check your facts they DO NOT BEAR OUT ANY TRUTH – do they now?
I really don’t understand wtf you are actually talking about, then. Did women create the Multicult?
Black Wall Street was a very successful attempt. I wonder what happened to all those very accomplished, high achieving blacks?
Keep putting blinders on and perpetuating this holier than thou, superiority complex.
In other words, black people are inferior subhumans.
Niggers don’t deserve to live among the civilized.
You could also call it being selectively obtuse. They know exactly what you meant.
You forgot Rwanda
You forgot ancient Eqypt and Ancient Nubia they lasted way way longer than our current USA system. They were quite advanced as well. Also remember the library of alexandria was in Africa. Never underestimate a group or a people, when you do, you do at your own risk.
A great book on this subject is “Bullies” by Ben Shapiro. It’s about how leftists use bullying and name calling tactics against the other side, and the other side tries to give a reasonable response. The problem being that the Leftists already won the emotional argument and made their sheep followers smile. A great example of fighting back against that is when he absolutely OWNED Peirs Morgan on his own show when talking about Gun Control. Turned his bully tactics against him , and embarrassed him on national Television.
Exactly. Use their own weapons against them.
The real Actualization of Alinsky theory coming to life will be if for some god awful reason Hillary is elected in 2016. He took her under his wing when she was just a young teen , and she even tried to get him to come speak at her college. Progressive female president who studied under an outright Socialist = The End of This Great Nation
The nation’s already dead. We are on a downward spiral. Look up the 10 planks of communism and understand that most of them have been implemented in this country.
Gah, look at Republicans (especially the ‘Moral Majority’ and they’ve used the exact same tactics since the 1970’s) today. The only way to clean the system is a real revolution. Not led by the socialists or the derpy hover round brigade, but by actual workers and small business owners.
Hang the politicians, and the Wall Street vulture capitalists. Behead the beast, kill the ‘defense’ industry and slash the welfare rolls. Get religion out of politics, and politics out of religion.
Small government isn’t the solution anymore than big government. Smart governance is the answer, and quite often it will be smaller, but sometimes it will have sections that are larger. Those should shift as the needs of the COUNTRY or state shift.
Small government is a far better solution than big government. The “moral majority” has no power if they have no authority. The War on Some Drugs has no power if they have no money or authority. Etc. Big government (both socialism and fascism/corporatism) is 95%+ of the problem. PS I’d argue Republicans, all the way back to Lincoln, have never been for small government.
No government is even better.
Yup although we’d probably have to get people use to small government again before we went to a form of anarchism.
I’m not so sure. Like Alinsky also pointed out, power must grow, or it will die. As the elites keep grabbing more and more for themselves, more and more have-nots will realize they have nothing left to lose….
Until, one day, enough have figured that Mogadishy in the 90s was, while not necessarily paradise, at least better than America anno now. And then they will do to “our” scum what the Somalis did to Barre.
It would be kind of nice if everyone could just figure out that government ought to be smaller, but I suspect going Mogadishu is the only real way to get any real change. And then, from there, perhaps people will have learned enough to once and for all break out of Alinsky’s cycle of revolutions, by simply refusing to ever again become governable. Much like the various inhabitants of Afghanistan figured out long, long ago.
The elites in power love big government. Small government is the only way to limit them. The TPTB want you to think big government is the answer because that yields them power.
No doubt about that. I’m just no longer sure getting to small government by playing by the rules laid out by the elites and their big government, is any easier than just blowing everything to smithereens and killing everyone, like the Somalis did.
As much shit as the elite sponsored indoctrination institutions are giving them; at least what the Somalis did in the 90s worked. They started with a big government, and now have a very reasonably sized one. That’s a pretty darned spectacular achievement. While here in the West, what have small government advocates achieved? Uh, babbling about Going Galt on the internet, while paying 50% taxes. That’s about it.
So, Somalis 1, Western freedom lovers a great big resounding 0 so far.
Yup…people stare at me blankly all of the time when I tell them we are already mostly socialist/communist.
Likewise with fascism.
Fascism means that the resources of a nation are used to benefit that nation. Franco wasn’t so bad. If Mussolini had kept out of the Imperial sweepstakes I doubt that the UK would have had a problem with him.
Right now the US and UK have Anarcho-Tyranny. The law breaker is protected and the tax payer is enslaved.
Nonsense.
There is no such thing as “benefiting the nation.” All that is, is newspeak for benefiting the ruling Junta. Noone benefits from working just to have the money confiscated by Franco, just because he says he will “benefit The Nation”, by building a bigger Palace for himself or whatnot.
I’ll take that on. The machine that Hitler built required a surprisingly small domestic security apparatus. The women were placed in the Kitchen to bear offspring and to cook. The men went off to annihilate their blood enemies in the Steppe. They stood to gain land and possessions through victory. That’s fascism. It didn’t need commissars or HR or venture capitalists or loans. Straight up no chaser. And Franco was a superior option to The Republic. Mussolini was better than the Gramsci ghouls waiting to massacre Italy.
Nope, fascism is literally a blend of capitalism and statism..aka crony capitalism. Nationalism definitely is usually mixed with classic fascism but not in recent years..in recent years corporatism has replaced classic fascists.
Fascism is essentially centralised government. It is a flavour of socialism but I think you are right about its nationalist nature versus communisms internatiional focus. That said either varient is evil.
By law breaker being protected, I take it you don’t mean the biggers law breaker in Britain, the British Government.
The changes that Hitler made to German civil society were not that great or even different to what the US Government is doing in America. The main reason the Nazi’s have such a bad rap is because of the Holocuast and of course Churchill decided to declare war on them rather than the Soviet Union when both of them invaded Poland!
Germany had invaded all of Czechoslovakia before though.
Furthermore, Germany had caused tremenduous butthurt to Britain (especially Churchill himself) decades before HItler came to power. Add to that Churchill’s (really Britains) incredible shabbosgoyism and you know why he did it.
Fascism, of the Italian variety (my favourite), can best be described as an ideal intricate merger between corporations and the state. Now where exactly do we see this happening at its most blatant? I’m looking at you there uncle Sam.
True although part of Czechoslovakia was German. Yeah part of the causes of WW2 reflected pride.
Sending every conceivable security threat (that’s be young males….) into war, does reduce the need for domestic security, I suppose……. And in what fantasyland (or videogame) are two guys “blood enemies” just because they happen to be born on different sides of some arbitrary national border.
What you’re describing with the gaining land etc. spiel, is simply foreign expansionism. It in no way requires Fascism. The Mongols weren’t Fascist, at least as far as Genghis, nor most current historians, were aware. And neither are the Muslims currently invading Europe. They’re just dudes who have been led to believe there’s stuff for the taking somewhere beyond the next hill. Traditionally, that kind of a push only works as long as there are new riches to conquer. Run out of that, and everything collapses, since conquering and pillaging is all that a generation or more of men have any experience doing.
As far as Franco was concerned, seeing how incredibly F’d up Spain became as his regime unraveled, I’m almost tempted to agree with you. For a few short years after the fall, Spain was such a pleasant paradise of a place to visit. And then the Eurotrashy feminists gained foothold, and now the place is falliong over itself to prove the Spanish can be just as trashy as the surrounding rabble they were told they were so inferior to.
But still, Franco’s regime fell because fascistic regimes are inherently self destructive. Like any regime, most likely; most certainly including Western social democracy. Once you have a government making decisions for people, people wither away and are more concerned about using the government for privilege, than about doing something self preserving. And then the whole structure weakens, until it finally unravels.
Yes. Indeed.
RFR is a fave book of Obama and ‘Tory’ /’Conservative’Cameron Prime Minster of the UK. RFR Just another tool used by the left/progressives/glolbalists to manipulate people
Im really afraid she might.
I can’t believe how naïve and brainwashed young people are. They all think bigger government will make their life better. The education system is full of faggot teachers training good little communist voters.
What really bugs leftists is “Vote for Monica Lewinsky’s ex- boyfriends wife” It points out the only accomplishment she has.
The nation is currently below 50% of the birthrate. The rest is Orcs picking them off one by one. It’ll simply require a Sarajevo 1914 moment to blow up.
Orsc are niggers right?
*Orcs
The discussions of government here seem to focus on capitalism vs communism. I see the problem as our representative democracy or republic doesn’t exist. The US has turned to capitalism as the de facto government. Instead of capitalism being the system of commerce. So then rich people control everything. Maybe that is the problem with democratic freedom. I don’t have the answer, but doesn’t someone? A system that allows wealth creation but not with the power attached to it. Seems reasonable to me. Cheers.
The tipping point is not approaching. We zoomed past it in late 2008.
Barring a miracle straight from God, or an Article V convention (which would be nigh unto miraculous), the collapse will arrive soon … no matter who gets elected to offices in Washington, DC.
Agreed. The demographic data was probably cooked long before that. I’d rewind back to 2000. The election in Florida was a harbinger. They might as well have tossed a coin.
What kind of collapse? Demographic? Financial?
Governmental, financial, societal … civilizational. Start learning how to provide for yourself without any outside help. It’s going to get positively post-apocalyptic.
What is the nature of this collapse you mention?
What’s unclear about the term “civilizational collapse?”
You answered a question with a question. This suggests that you have no clear idea of what you mean.
No. It suggests that I think the questioner is trolling.
Well then you’re an idiot.
The meaning of the term “societal collapse” is obvious on its face, and it’s even more clear because of the context in which I used it. Nobody but you expressed uncertainty about its meaning. This leads to one of two conclusions: 1) You’re truly ignorant about what “society” and “collapse” mean, which I don’t buy because your other comments indicate a decent grasp of basic English; or 2) You’re asking disingenuously, hoping to score cheap rhetorical points by bandying definitions like a smug undergrad prog boy in a dorm room bull session. My money’s on option two, unless you can plausibly offer a third explanation that I missed.
As for your low opinion of my intelligence, it matters to me as much as the opinion of any other third-rate pseudonymous commenter on any of a thousand web sites. That is, not at all.
English Bob, in your world I may as well be Little Bill Daggett.
You wrote all this text and still cannot clearly tell me what you mean by the term. From the moment I asked you the question you became defensive. This suggests you have no confidence in your own conception of the “collapse” and are perhaps a little embarrassed by this. After all, you can’t back it up. The reason I asked you was, ironically, to provide you the benefit of the doubt (that this was something you had actually thought deeply about). This is because people fling this term around for silly reasons (like sex selfies are indicative of the coming “collapse”). Has there anywhere, at any time been a “civilisation collapse”? I am not sure but trust me, short of global nuclear war or a zombie apocalypse Western Civilisation is not going to collapse (although it will continue to decay and become poorer as government expands).
Btw, one other person asked you a similar question 😉
Obama was coddled by socialists and communists his whole life too. Their goal is socialism and the seeds are being sown all around us. If you read the Communist Manifesto he says that socialism is an inevitable outcome of capitalism. Inevitable.
I’ve always thought to win an argument you must know both sides of it. I’m a libertarian if I had to choose a “party” , so I made sure to read Communist Manifesto, Rules for Radicals, books on “The Weather Underground” , etc. Talk about taking the Red Pill, when you know the baseline strategy and then see them being used on the citizens of your nation it’s a Sobering day indeed.
If it is true that he ran with Bernadette Dohrn and that other fellow from the “Weather Men”(a quote from a Dylan song) then he’s got to be aware that they were rhetorically committed to killing 25 million white conservatives. What happened as a result of the pill and female emancipation and possibly even black emancipation is that these 25 million extra white boys never even got born. The apparatus that these genocidal freaks were constructing never had to get to the cattle car stage because the population they hate is now strinking and on it’s last legs.
This is absolutely true and its painful to see so many red pill minded men reflexively choose capitalism over communism as if you only had those 2 to choose from.
Both are extremely materialistic and both relegate man to the lowest common denominator. In capitalism we see this as man’s worth is only valued in an economic sense.
How much money do you make? 30k a year? Aw shit you’re not a real man!
How much do you own? Don’t own a house and at least 2 cars? Not a man!
Nowhere in these disgusting ideologies is the pursuit of higher virtues as befitting what makes a man who he is. Things like heroism and self sacrifice are all but dead with this dialectical coin.
Wake the fuck up stupid libertarians.
Idiot.
What is this capitalism you speak of? It sure isn’t the incestuous, octopus of a system characterized by by insider fixing and cronyism and often attached to one of the numerous teats of the military industrial complex. I don’t understand why more people don’t see that. You know quite a few got rich from their contacts and contracts with the old Soviet Union. Especially after Stalin died. Hell the Bolshevik Revolution was funded and backed by some of these so called “capitalists”.
Because idiots like him don’t even bother to discover what libertarianism even is. They think it’s about “materialism”. These stupid assumptions are positively eye-rolling.
All you have is ad hominems so thanks for conceding the argument to me.
Precisely correct. Now whether you want to argue that so called capitalists financing the bolshevik revolution was not true capitalism is up to you but history proves what the people actually practicing “capitalism” did indeed do.
Take also jewess ayn rand who made remarkable contributions to the idea of capitalism in her books. Namely Capitalism the Uknown Ideal. Again another atheist jew deciding what ought to work for western civilizations. She completely denied any morality in her “objectivism” which is probably why when her younger boyfriend left her for a younger woman she tried to destroy him completely. She was simply acting out of her ideology which had absolutely no moral constraints.
Why this guy mike gets so butthurt when I level any criticism towards his beloved libertarianism is beyond me. If you were secure in the position you would not react so knee jerk to critique….brah.
As BrockSamson said earlier the communist manifesto explcitly details that SOCIALISM is an inevitable outcome of capitalism. Do you not get that chief(mike)? I feel like smacking my head over and over again going DOH!…. DOH!
So forgive me I’m dense but where stand you then?
Well that is perhaps a more complicated question and one in which I admit not to have the complete answer.
But a good rule of thumb for me in searching for truth is to experience untruth in your pursuit and effectively note that and discard whatever it is.
So in essence knowing where not to stand is an essential part of the process. In this case knowing not to give my complete confidence in the hegelian dialectic between communism/capitalism is a great start.
Western thought has been juxtaposed between these two for a long time and I know that it has been to our detriment.
thesis-antithesis-synthesis
crisis-reaction-solution
This is what we’ve all subjected ourselves to by our social engineers who are running the new slave plantations. I guess much like socrates story about the men in the cave…….one man finds the light outside and the others hate/kill him for it.
I appreciate the discourse and I will certainly consider what you wrote. However for good or not I try to simplify as much as possible, boil things down to their essence. So I don’t see what you criticize as capitalism and to me the more power you give to the leviathan the worse off you are. In other words do I get to reap the fruits (or lack) of my labors or does the state? To me failing is not nearly as bad as playing the game with restrictions, or worse yet being excluded altogether. Take care.
“In other words do I get to reap the fruits (or lack) of my labors or does the state? ”
I’m in total agreement with you and its not that I think the idea of capitalism is bad. It does indeed have more real world application than communism. However we must recognize who and whom.
Who has promoted these ideals and who has benefited from them the most? I think we can agree that it’s certainly not the common man.
Also while communism relegates man to a drone in the hivemind’s nest, capitalism relegates him to an insatiable consumer of never ending excess (See american girls be like memes).
Put the two together and you have our modern idiocracy. It is that hard to come to the conclusion that it was by design?
I love that! Quotation marks around Materialism. Sorta like those “Palestinians” we hear about in the press.
Capitalism is based on a strong middle class which America no longer has. Any ” pure” economic system leads to dysfunction ultimately. Capitalism – all the money has gone to the top 1%
Socialism – Unsustainable, and riots are rampant.
Communism- total collapse, rebuilding with makeshift “capitalism” under a dictator.
America is still stable for now, the only check we have over our ruling class is the second amendment , making us the most well armed society in man kind’s history. If Occupy Wall Street had been armed someone might have given a fuck, meanwhile the Tea Party ( although co opted by the system) has turned the Republican Party on it’s head and has some degree of clout in Washington. OWS should learn, without the threat of force, no one takes you seriously.
hmmm, someone who actually gets it.
This statement:
“In other words do I get to reap the fruits (or lack) of my labors or does the state? To me failing is not nearly as bad as playing the game with restrictions, or worse yet being excluded altogether.”
Explains perfectly why Capitalism will always trump every other known and tried system out there – “idealist” will never get it. Enabling everyone with the ability to determine their own fate in and of itself is the only True Freedom there is.
Success or Failure, it’s entirely in your own hands.
Anything else is just trading one form of slavery for another.
Right on
It isn’t that hard to come to such a conclusion if you are a conspiracy theorist. But you ignore/overlook one crucial part:
You can opt out! No one has to play. And even if you do, you have a choice as to how you express your ultimate success.
If you choose to break up your family or start one ill equipped, then fail to raise your offspring with any type of good values; then encourage a materialistic and selfish mindset, while setting the example of a self-absorbed ego maniac – then of course the result is a “American Girls Be Like” meme and other examples of cultural debauchery.
Don’t mistake an unpleasant side effect of individual choice as evidence of a inherent design flaw of the “system”.
I hope you don’t mean to say that calling someone a conspiracy theorist is a bad thing? That’s more of the leftist strategy of branding anyone who dares to look into issues and come to conclusions outside of group think.
Other then that I think you fail to see my point which is not that there are flaws in the system. Hell communism looks great on paper and it would work great if everyone actually acted in the way it espouses.
The problem is not with the system but the people behind it and the people who make decisions while hoisting it’s banner.
Not all humans have the same decision making ability.
Not all humans have the same future time orientation…if any at all.
I can’t understand religion. I refuse to be subservient to an invisible sky wizard. Much less one that’s appointed a bunch if effeminate losers to lead the cause. ‘The meek shall inherit the earth.’ Great, how meek will they be, and will they ever be able to be men again.
No–Government leads to a dysfunctional system ultimately. Capitalism (and I’m not talking about crony capitalism/fascism–which is mostly what we have today) is the best of the bunch.
Example #1: You can make a good case for example that patents and IP shouldn’t even exist in capitalism. Yet corporate America acts like its the biggest thing with capitalism ever. Corporate America and Government use it to stifle competition and limit small business from competing with big business.
GOVERNMENT is what corrupts. Anytime you give GOVERNMENT power–your economic system will corrupt faster than it would otherwise–regardless of whatever system you are using.
I am a patent attorney and I understand both sides of the argument you made in Example 1 above. The role of patents is to spur innovation by granting exclusive rights for twenty years to create a financial incentive to create. However patent trolls, corrupt legislation(ie SOPA), and big money interest can stifle small inventors and competing technology. Furthermore, life saving Drug innovation( like next generation anti bacterials to fight MRSA and other drug resistant infections) are avoided in favor of lifestyle drugs that make more money( currently that research is focused on female sexual arousal). Unfortunately for the time being the USPTO is what it is.
Our government needs the money taken out of it, term limits, and elections made national holidays. I know that will not fix everything but it is my submission as a good start.
Agreed on your last points.
Our founding fathers had some good debates on patents. I’d argue most patents should be based on the average time to get your cash flow back (music has a 1 year patent, drugs have a 10 year patent, most tech stuff is 3 years, etc). I’m not sure I’d even allow IP at all.
Perhaps its simply emergent behaviour, not “by design”. When you let a whole herd of agents loose with a few simple rules it can become a fantastically complex thing without any meta-direction or over riding directive from some super mind or overlord. Fractals being the simplest example of that, biological life being a really cool version of it. There is no master plan, there is simply a few simple rules. So Corporations and business’ are agents with a basic set of rules, “make money for shareholders”, compete for business, try to get the resources cheap, try to sell goods and services for more. Put a bunch of those agents in a bubble with a sum of resources etc and after a number of generations or cycles of activity you will have a fantastically complex system at work that may appear to be “by design” but its not, its simply all the agents following their own rules.
The one 1% crowd is smart, trust me I spend a lot of time with them, because they know to make lots of money they don’t need to “guide” the system in such a way as to directly try to control people at all, they can simply buy stocks in the agents / companies that are best at extracting profits from the market. The agents do all the social work.
You could look at Christ as a bad ass manual labourer who took his best swing at the Temple Priesthood and only just came up short. In death he inspired a moral victory.
Today the priesthood sit on the Supreme Court bench. Some blacks, some Jews some women and one guy with wasps name and the catholic faith. What would the founders have thought of that?
Take your best swing at them. Immortality. Take it.
Let’s be frank. Capitalism as a propaganda term is just another word for being selfish. Communism is according to the propaganda about being selfless.
Both forms of economic argument ignore group evolution strategies. Humans form families and extended families. They form clans then tribes. From this tribe you might get a nation or a ruling caste or a niche minority that specializes in one occupation. At a certain point if that extended family inbreed somewhere back in pre history you get what we call a race. Society is a racial construct.
Everything else is probably bullshit.
I disagree. Capitalism as a term literally means individual freedoms and choices (please note I am not talking about corporate/fascism/MNCs). Communism means collective choices and no ownership of anything important, except by the elites. Communism is arguably far more selfish than capitalism (the wants of the many in the short term outweigh the wants/needs of the few), regardless of effort.
I do mean “conspiracy theorist” as a bad thing. But not in an attempt to type-cast you. It’s a bad thing because while it’s good and healthy to always be a skeptic. It’s simply sick and self defeating to always seek and expect conspiracies behind every corner. That said, from your reply, I don’t believe you are such.
Your statement “The problem is not with the system but the people behind it and the people who make decisions while hoisting it’s banner.” IS exactly the problem. But that is also why it will never be solved, or overcome. People are the wildcard. We fuck up everything we touch, no matter how good our intentions, or how perfect the system.
Therefore we must identify the system which lets the best be the best, while at worse allowing for the rest to be merely be “adequate” if that’s all they are capable of. Because 90% of the population is just that – adequate, or more directly mediocre.
No kidding. I am reminded of the old joke:
“Under Capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism, the opposite occurs.”
What exactly does ideology have to do with whether an individual in a society acts heroic (self-sacrifice? huh?) or in a virtuous manner? Is the fireman who rushes into a burning building to save people, in Soviet Moscow, or New York, acting in such a manner because they are capitalists, or communists? Did the “system” cause, enable, or prevent their behavior? Did no Nazi soldier ever act in a heroic fashion to save a comrade? No Red Army soldier?
This tool should move to the Star Trek-like future where he would be at home, a society money has been abolished as everyone works together for the good of their utopia, and lives happily ever after. LIve long and prosper.
Please re read Adam Smith and David Hume. You are well off base. Smith’s Wealth of Nations is all about self interest. Perhaps the word selfish put you off. I don’t see selflessness as a good characteristic.
I am not suggesting capitalism isn’t about self interest. I’m suggesting communism is even more so. You not only get to act in your own interest (those that support communism), you can selfishly demand the fruits of other people’s labor at the same time. I am very well aware of Adam Smith, etc. I’m a libertarian, economics degree, and MBA not to mention a good bit of fun debating/philosophy/research in my private life.
Ideology has everything to do with how an individual acts. Whether you want to accept it or not capitalism is as much a religion as christianity with its own set of dogmas, heresies, esoteric systems etc. These are methods in which individuals think and believe which also affects the decisions they make.
Do you support capitalism and are you an american citizen? If so then by that ideology you would have no problem accepting something like NAFTA. In which case you are a fucking piece of shit that deserves the end of my boot heel across your forehead.
Obama is a CIA puppet.
Obama wrote a Communist Manifesto? 🙂
Hillary’s a neocon corporatist.
I usually watch Keith Olberman he has a highlight show on late ESPN, until a few days ago he had some feminist cunt on his show bitching about men being animals and the patriarchy controlling women (something about the NFL player who got suspended 2 games for hitting his wife).
They really have invaded every facet of life, I can’t even watch a sports highlight show without being bitched at by a fucking woman.
It also shows how gullible women are. Leftists in power know its easy to rally their vote by creating bullshit boogyman issues that women think theyre ‘being brave’ fighting for their ‘rights’ which means having daddy government pay for birth control and mandating hiring in STEM fields.
Olbermann is a liberal tool, would expect nothing less from him. As a matter of fact I think “The Good Men project” actually linked to that clip on their front page. Says all you need to know right there
Sports and sports journalism, rather than being free of leftism, is actually the stronghold of leftism. Sports reporter need to be even more liberal than political reporters in order to get hired and work.
This is because viewers who watch sports can see realities with their own eyes that the media liars have to convince you didn’t happen.
Examples: HBD differences, such as competition abilities of blacks vs whites or men vs women, behaviors of athletes and what alphas can get away with that betas cannot, making up social crises like concussions, using sports to advance gay mairrage or fight brest cancer, Interests of men vs women, covering up for whatever the cause du jour is….
Keep women who don’t show their tits and stomach off of ESPN, thank you.
A good summary of dastardly, yet effective, techniques. I personally find #7 (Confidence is half the battle) and #18 (Make fun of your opponent) to be the best tactics. I used to be far too passive and gentlemanly and that got me… not very far. But in battle, if you charge forth with confidence, most people will just get out of your way. And if you start laying down ridicule, almost everybody will start quivering and running for cover. These tactics do work. I encourage the manosphere to adopt them.
Alinsky, like all leftists, depend on certain things for their tactics to work.
Shame, social taboos, moral outrage, and the like. Basically appeals to broad emotions in lieu of reasoning.
Before we engage in similar tactics, it is important first to disrupt the pre-existing moral groundwork laid by leftists, in order to deprive them of their footing. So begin arguments by questioning the usefulness, universality and validity of things like equality, compassion, tolerance and so forth. Without their rigid moral standards, the left’s is always reduced to little more than calling you “mean”.
“Basically appeals to broad emotions in lieu of reasoning.”
This is the status quo that needs to be overthrown first. The majority/masses making decisions and statements based off of their emotions rather than logic and reasoning.
The reason why it is so prevelant to begin with is bc it is used by the weak and unfortunately we have a lot of weak people around. The weak identify courage/bravery with “coming out,” instead of fighting to save a person’s life or standing up against things that are wrong, no matter how brainwashed others are.
Roosh, this post (while very good and appropriate), is before its time. Some thoughts associated with RoK have momentum, but not solid backing, this can be seen by the number of guest users and avatars. So one person and one red pill at a time, for now.
You have to convince people that equality is bullshit. The rest follows. Men then social, military, sporting, educational clubs that exclude undesirables.
Things like shame, social taboos, moral outrage, humourus insults, etc. will always work on the masses. Unless today’s above average intelligence becomes average (will never happen without eugenics), the masses will always appeal to emotions before logic.
Before we engage in similar tactics, it is important to point out to the people what the leftists are doing. Use basic logic to explain that the people are being played for fools. No one wants to be used or proven stupid, and it will stoke a deep resentment for the leaders they once loved. Use this tactic to take out low level leftists, and slowly work up the chain. But never stop working on the levels you’ve already won. One leftist proven to be a conman in a certain position means nothing. 100 in the same exact position proven to be a conman and the term “leftist” starts to sound like a poison in that position – and the poison will spread. Turn their gilded banner into a disease and rot them away from the bottom up.
After you point out and prove that the speaker is using his supporters, the public will be more open to simplistic logic explaining why the speaker is wrong. They are already starting to resent the speaker, so they will be looking for more reasons to resent and hate them. This will be the way to destroy a regime built on subversion and manipulation – instill emotional uncertainty and perceived wrong doing, rinse and repeat, and then drop the exocutioner’s axe with logic. Moral standards aren’t nearly as important to a people as is self-esteem and reputation.
I’d like to add one, and I think RoK excells at this:
Rule 6:
A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
Alinsky meant that the fun factor matters. People need to want to engage. I think that’s why it often pays to deliver hard-core content a nifty format. The “American Girls Be Like” post on RoK today is a good example. It combines fun with ridicule, another Alinskyite weapon. Beats the heck out of a dour 3,000 word treatise on dysfunctional culture and bad manners. (We do need dour 3,000 word treatises, but it’s hard to lead or communicate like that.)
We can see this on college campuses, where being a progressive is the ticket to socialization, acceptance, and good grades. The opposite leads to being ostracized, and the threat keeps people in line. For instance, any student who stand up and says they think environmentalism is a politically-motivated scam will lose 90% of their friends in an eyeblink. Hollywood is another example; attractive, charismatic personalities have long been used to make their part of the political spectrum into the place people want to be.
The Men’s Human Rights Movement can learn a lot from the RoK style. Amid discussions of men being destroyed in family court, and male college students under siege by feminist kangaroo tribunals, ways need to be found to help people feel there’s something hip and cool about standing up for human rights for men.
Agreed. A possible factor in the popularity & credibility of Red Pill stand up performers like Bill Burr, the late great Patrice O’Neal & possibly Chris Rock.
Education through entertainment.
Make ’em confront uncomfortable truths through laughter in an atmosphere where their mental guards are lowered.
Saul Alinsky tactics for good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e1TspJEcPc
I like this. Showing politicians up to make them look like the Nazi’s that they really are is a good thing.
So in other words you’re describing simple trolling. Lolz
I read this last year and you pointed out some good techniques from the book. My critque with the book however is that it does nothing to actually change the mindset of the mob. As you said, it is not hard to remove the status quo from the top, but unless you inform, educate, train, and qualify your followers (or the mob in general)–then they will be just as susceptible to be overthrown as the former group that fell.
And in doing the latter you face a morality issue–can the mob be educated and so forth, or do they need to be treated as children and manipulated for the short term fix (gratification)?
A perfect democracy involves it citizens to actually be politcally involved and knowledgeable of it’s leadership, but the average American can identify the face of its city’s sports star or national entertainer before they could their mayor or governor–you know the people who actually hold weight in their lives.
The place ceased to be a Republic during ww2. The manhood of the nation was pointed at the wrong target. Even Patton agreed.
Revolutions are a waste of time. Even in those 23 principles the truth is there… “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”…. the solution is for us as INDIVIDUALS to ABANDON COLLECTIVISM:
http://www.oshoworld.com/biography/innercontent.asp?FileName=biography8/08-16-rebel.txt
Osho was one smart motherfucker!
The book is guide (Torah) to dispossess a rival ethnic elite. If Alinsky didn’t fess up to authorship the book would have likely been written off by an earnest Journalist as Anti-Semitic counter intelligence.
By all means read it. Compare and contrast with the Protocols though. The similarities are amusing.
The Talmud preaches tribal form of socialism with ownership of property to be controlled by elders of the community. This is the basis of the Kibbutz communes in Israel. Here is the only nation in the world which has voluntarily adopted communal living. The hundreds of Kibbutz in Israel operate many farms and factories. It is of interest that they are always millions in debt and must be bailed out constantly with U.S. Foreign Aid money.
You may enjoy this Communism: A jewish Talmudic Concept
interesting, and worth noting. But its easy to forget how many medieval and early modern christian sects there were that effectively sought to practice communism or something like it – Fra Dolcino in the communes of Italy; the levellers / Diggers etc, in the english revolution. Early socialism was christian socialism – robert owen etc.
Very true but early modern christian sects didn’t require or receive over $50 billion in economic aid to remain afloat, indefinitely. So that’s definitely “worth” something, just maybe not to you.
i’m not really pushing an argument either way, merely noting that both christianity & judaism have their communisms. Economically what sets them apart? Usury? But what part does usury play in the theory of communism, except maybe as part of the critique of capitalism. I am not saying you’re wrong just that I don’t really see the continuity
I realized that as soon as I pressed send. I apologize for my combativeness. Communistic societies typically fail w/the absence of outside assistance. Which is why Early modern Christian sects and are ‘Early Modern’ and the Kibbutz communes persist to-date. Usury is an evil practice but as you said, a non-factor.
Living in a voluntary utopian project isn’t exactly communism or socialism. It’s certainly not totalitarian. I’d call it free association.
Usury isn’t needed if you can work a folk to death.
one may own directly through registering a title to a property, whether of a house or a person (slave) or one can control them through debt I suppose.
You are aware that the “Protocols” are a forgery and not for real, right?
They are a Tsarist counter intelligence propaganda effort. Still, well worth a read. I’d say the Tsar’s secret police were spooked by something, after reading what happened to Nicholas II I’d say they did their best to warn him. To no avail though. Sadly.
I think the J’s wrote the Protocols. The methods have too closely matched world events over the past 100+ years and the Tsar’s Intelligence men, no matter how bright, aren’t going to think of something the J’s are going to think of themselves first. The secret police can conceptualize the genius-level subversion; the J’s live and breathe it.
The idea of combining the power of the central banks and the power of the press as starting bases of power had been around since the start of the Illuminati back in the 18th century.
Protest and activism are in reality the luxury activities of the powerful. Activism and the hoopla surrounding it reinforces who gets to “name” the next clique or class due to be swept into the ash heap.
Occupy Wallstreet’s 1% meme? 1%? You could have listed them on a sheet of paper and request their elimination, right? None of the activists put together “An Enemy of the 99% List”. Not one had the courage to name the billionaires keeping them down. It would have been easy to compile a criminals list. It smacks of controlled opposition.
Roosh, write a book. Not another Bang Timbaktu. A real one, that changes the world. Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital. Something that will stand up for centuries. That others can use as a manual for their thinking.
Roosh doesn’t have the intellectual firepower. At least as of yet. His thinking is too rigid currently.
I like Roosh’s writings a lot in general, I just think he misses out very important key pieces in his analysis of situations. For example, in his most famous blog post about cultural collapse, he doesn’t mention the most obvious reason for it: economic collapse and the reason for that economic collapse. There’s no mention of usury debt, the liberal beliefs “spending grows an economy”, “let the FED do its job”, QE, ZIRP, or any of the very relevant factors that led us to where we are now.
hahaha yeah, that’s a classic failure to internalize the reasons for a collapse; as if lower standard of living has nothing to do with a society degenerating
Like bubbles (from a formerly great economy) and inflation running amok have no influence on the society breaking to pieces. I think the next few weeks will bear out whether the markets are really just shell games run by the FED. Would surprise me a lot if we have big problems before the November elections; liberal scum are getting worried
Quote 9 appeared in my post two weeks ago on Rules for Radicals:
http://runsonmagic.com/2014/07/make-right-enemies/
The lessons from this book are solid.
In my opinion, however, the whole system is the problem. All democratic institutions drift progressively towards communism. The way to solve all this bullshit is to return to absolute monarchy. I doubt it’s going to happen, but there you have it.
And of course, no
one dares to mention that Saul D. Alinsky is just another Jew presenting his
dirty tactics and earning a little money by selling them to gullible people.
Feel free to purge from your life all scientific, cultural, and literary contributions in which Jews played a part. Nobody is stopping you.
That’s a trick challenge. The Germans did their best to burn out everything they could and the tribe organized a revanchist expedition to immolate Germany. There is no exit.
You didn’t mention the legal and financial contributions.
Yea he did forget to mention usury and the destruction of christian ethos in law practice.
In call that Cohencidence.
You mean contributions like the contraceptive pill invented by Carl Djerassi (Bulgarian Jew)?
yeah we could start with capitalism and the contraceptive pill. Feel free to purge those from your life.
In purging capitalism go ahead and enjoy that pre-industrial standard of living. You can do without anything manufactured by a corporation, sure. In purging the pill, well I hope you like condoms and/or child support.
The Jews didn’t invent the internal computation engine nor did they invent the train. Aircraft? No. Not even the damned TV or the tumble dryer. Corporate raiding (capitalism, plutocracy) isn’t the same thing as modern convenience. Your nose is getting ahead of yourself hosenose.
Perhaps spellcheck is a Jewish invention. The internal combustion engine.
I might add that they had fuck all to do with Turing and his early computers.
As far as “the internal computing engine” goes, Von Neumann was Jewish.
Anyway, the other commenter was the one who suggested that capitalism is a Jewish invention, not me. I did point out, correctly, that in the absence of capitalism we would not have mass access to modern conveniences, so the point stands. The mass production and distribution of products would not be possible without capitalism. Look at what happens in non-capitalist countries – they have very few consumer goods, even though they have access to the technology.
I like me some Bob Dylan but guys like Freud and Edward Teller (atomic bomb) can suck my balls
Or did you mean the invention of the both capitalism (David Ricardo) and communism (Karl Marx)?
Or did you mean the nuclear weapons (Robert Oppenheimer)?
Use their tactics against them. The Jews are going down; it’s just a question of them taking us with them. See veteranstoday.com for more details.
No chance, a parasite is an organism that depends on another organism, known as a host, for food and shelter.
Check out the site I linked to. It’s not just everyday peeps waking up; it’s the high-ranking current and former intelligence and military types as well.
I did, thank you.
I dislike basically every Jew I’ve ever met on an individual level, but I suspect that the majority of people who post comments like this have never lived in, say, Serbia or an Arab country before. The comment just screams internet troll with no life experience. I doubt it really matters who is in power in the 1% of the 1%. If you’re drawing a causal connection between Judaism and corruption the more logical connection is probably unfettered power + lack of morals.
In group and out group double standards are the main complaint.
Israel is itself a highly ethnocentric and racist state. This isn’t even debatable. Most Western States guilt tripped into keeping their heads down about that truth have outlawed racism on pain of criminal charges. Most Jews in those western states will spare no expense and effort rooting out racists in the west that they’d defer to in the context of Israel.
The situation is mind boggling because western nations get blamed by Arabs for supporting Israel politically and financially. Migrate an Arab into the US and the world his his oyster and all sorts of rights are served on a good platter. Arabs can even claim discrimination against whites who object to their migration into the west.
Almost no one ever seems to notice the pattern.
Conversely, I like basically every Jew I’ve ever met on an individual level.
However, unfettered power (through nepotism) and lack of morality are cornerstones of Talmudic Judaism.
As much as I’d like to agree with you, this seems like a pretty random statement. I suspect you’re the type of guy who sees a homeless Jewish guy on the street and shouts, “FUCK THAT FUCKING RICH ASS JEW!” then goes back underground to yank it to some midget porn
That actually explains a lot about RoK. Using a lot of the methods in the book(some of which aren’t mentioned directly such as needing a villain….in this case primarily American Women) Roosh has succeeded in creating an energetic, fairly radical community of guys.
Use that power well.
There’s one big flaw with trying to adopt a large proportion of these rules: we work. I’m not some perpetual student, I got a real job, my own business, a growing family and responsibilities out the ass. I’m kind of past the rules for radicals … at my stage in life, if someone fucks with me badly enough they get an elbow in the face.
Its great to see ROK / Roosh tackling strategy, and being prepared to learn from the left’s great successes. I’m not that familiar with Alinsky, but I’ve long felt that to make an impact on society the manosphere needs to be very clear about what it wants to achieve, and even clearer on how it should go about achieving it. A problem here is that much of it is still reactive in style, playing catch-up to the shock-troops of the left who we always knew to have theory, but have also a century or so of tactical thought to go with it. Alinsky though seems to pure tactics and as others have pointed out there are dangers about adopting any kind of tactic that isn’t an outgrowth of what you actually believe. That’s not a point about ethics, but about the likelihood that if simply anything goes, including psy-ops and outright lies, then sooner or later you’re going to be called out on the emptiness of the tactics you’re using. So I second those who recommend we select and adopt only those tactics that are going to work, particularly if for example we adopt the ‘ridicule’ tactic – there is so much to ridicule in the left it should be like shooting fish in a barrel, but that’s only going to work if there’s a solid base (of integrity / honesty) upon which to ground it.
Another appalling but effective machiavellian tome is the gay rights psy-op manual After the Ball, which recommends even more specific tactics for bringing people along with you, and where that fails, deceiving them. Like with Alinsky it focuses on ridicule amongst other tactics, and very carefully crafted arguments which are still in use today. The point about ‘making it fun’ is also relevant in this context as well, as anyone who has ever witnessed a gay parade will appreciate.
Perhaps its time we said fair play to these guys and simply tried to beat them at their own game. Maybe we need to have a big ‘not-so-gay” manosphere party. You know one big celebration of all things testerone-fuelled. We could invite the gals from Jezebel maybe.
I don’t know that would work. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn’t. That’s why its important tactics wise to separate the wheat from the chaff; customise to the occasion
I’m beginning to wonder. Is RooshV a Jew too or just another MK-ultra controlled puppet?
perhaps the manosphere is the lost tribe of israel!
No that’s the american Indians lmao.
Roosh is purple-pill.
I`m getting ever so fed up with your anti-semitism here, dude.
Jews had harlots stoned for adultry, so they are a good example to follow.
Jews kept their bitches in line for thousands of years.
If a woman was a whore, they dragged the bitch to her father`s doorstep and stoned her in front of the house..
If a woman turned out to have fucked before her wedding-night she was stoned to death.
So take your fucking anti-semitism and ram it up your asshole, you feminist-fuck.
And that goes for all of you anti-semites out there.
You are bashing a people who kept their bitches so fine in line, that you people – by comparison, – look like “The National Organisatan for Women”.
So suck it. You feminist-fucks.
Not true. Abraham (proto-Jew) was more pimp than patriarch. He rented out Sara to both the King of the Hittites and the King of the Egyptian. Read your genesis.
Jews were pretty handy at subverting the Harlots among the Goy as well. See Rahab betraying her folk in the Jericho siege story.
We also have the fly on the wall account of John The Baptist getting his head lopped off because a Jewish King couldn’t resist Salome’s demands for blood.
Again mythology and historical fiction, perhaps or a warning from history.
The Jews kept their bitches in line just fine, and no man was served sloppy leftover cunt on his wedding-night.
The women were pure and unspoiled virgins on their wedding-nights, otherwise:
“20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”
Deuteronomy 22:20-21.
So take your anti-semitism and ram it up your assholes, you fucking feminist homos.
Because The Jews kept their bitches in line on a level so sweet, that you can`t even begin to fathom it, so they should be praised for that, not back-stabbed by a bunch of Nazi-feminists, or whatever you people are supposed to be.
What about Salome? The subornation of Rahab? The pimping of Sarah? The three way with Leah and Rachel? Fast forward to today… Uchitel, Lewinsky, Annie Sprinkle, 3/4 of the porn starz, any actress you care to mention…then you have Carlos Danger, Tony Weiner and that ballet fag Rahm Emanuel and the fairy Mike Bloomberg.
Esterka sucked my uncircumcised cock
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esterka
Dirty fucking bitch.
Your just rambeling.
“Director” and the other fucker called “бай Хуй” are feminist trolls, trying to equate the anti-feminist movement with anti-semtism or Nazism.
Fuck off.
What are you gonna do, sell your sister to a pimp for $25 handjobs? No wait your dad probably already did. He disinherited you.
FIREWING, Master your emotions and stop responding to trolls. Director, You’re a fucking loser.
While that may be true, this Firewing needs to examine the historical record a little bit more. I’m happy enough to examine the sins of my own people and account for their collective misdeeds.
Somehow I doubt that. Find a new hobby.
Leave the subnormal intellect of Fingwing alone!
I beg to differ.
I’m glad you forgot about me!
Don’t mention the sprinkling
You apparently haven’t a fucking clue about your own religion. Jews haven’t kept their ‘bitches in line’ for over a thousand years.
Real Jews keep their bitches in line in accordance with Deuteronomy and keep The Law.
If some modern day faggots who CALL themselves “Jews” do not, then they are not real Jews, but phony wanna-be jews.
Jewish is what Jewish does.
Christian is what Christian does,
and Islamic is what Islamic does.
If either of them don`t follow what God has told them to do, then they are not “Jewish”, “Christian” or “Muslim”.
True.
The No True Jew Falacy. Moron.
god speaks?
what would be the direct implications of Roosh being Jewish?
Check out “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer. He expands a lot on the topic of why people seek out and lose themselves in these types of leftist/collectivist groups. It’s a book worthy of review on this site for sure.
Yes, Hoffer along with other mid-20th Century men figured a lot of this ideology-bullshit. Fromm is good too. Alinsky is such an incidious loser: the kind of man that Carville and Karl Rove idolize. Men need to read more Homer and Hemingway. Ideology, -ism,& causes reaks of femininity.
At least Marx was a legitimate kook. Alinsky was interested in nothing less than creating personal power by destroying the foundations of humanity.
Unfortunately, it is the nature of civilization to constantly be destroyed and reborn. If it hadn’t been Alinsky, it would have been some other shitbag.
Shhhhhh!
Alinsky would have been relegated to barking under the sofa at some cheap coffeehouse if large segments of the American elite had not converted to leftism. The power structure he demonizes was much more tolerant of the Left than the Left was when it achieved power in the run-up to Obamunism. At almost any time up until recently the old power structure could have liquidated the Alinskyites socially and politically, if not literally.
True, but at the same time, we have truth on our side, which in many ways is more powerful than “large segments of the American elite”. We can make arguments and ridicule our opponents in the full knowledge that we won’t have to think too hard, for the same reason that it’s easier to tell the truth to a court than perjure oneself, with the added benefit that they’ll have the nagging realization that we’re correct and they’re wrong, which will demoralize them.
The amount of “-ism” and “ideology” on this site is definitely exhibiting the low-points of actively combating feminism. There is no cause that will save you and the best way to fight a cause is to rise above it by living “right”. There are no answers or formulas for life. Causes, -isms, and ideologies only produce slaves, which is why internet message boards are filled with hate&anger: everyone has their own cause to espouse. This internet bickering is for losers.
I’ll admit I’m being a boor. However, anti-semitism is merely something a Jew doesn’t like being pointed out. An Anti-Semite is someone a Jew doesn’t like. I’m not sure it’s an ideology. More of a label. Everytime an Anti-Semite like Mel Gibson is forced to professional destruction it’s evidence once again, of the power that the tribe doesn’t wield in the public sphere, isn’t it? The invisible hand that didn’t slap Gary Oldman, no sir.
You know who else hated Jews?
Charles Fourier!
That`s right! Charles Fourier: THE INVENTOR OF FEMINISM, hated Jews!
Just like you do!
So there you go.
CHARLES FOURIER, THE INVENTOR OF FEMINISM, HATED JEWS just like you do.
So why don`t you join Charles Fourier in Hell and take that other feminist-troll “бай Хуй” with you?
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture21a.html
You just went full retard dude. Never go full retard.
Almost every prominent Brit, Frenchman, American, German, Russian, Spaniard, Italian you care to mention either muttered something about Jews or plain shunned them. The pedigree of men like Voltaire, Degas, Ben Frankin, Cicero, US Grant, Edward I, Phillip Augustus, Ferdinand & Isabella and many others should have any European or American at least examine the case of the Anti-Semite. Cicero’s “Pro Flacco” is the most concise classical anti-Semitic tract. Well worth a read.
‘Unlike like a lot of people, i tend to do this moron thing. It’s called thinking for myself’- paraphrased, George Carlin
Alinksy felt that one could get what they wished if they acted like ass holes in public. You should follow these rules if you are prepared for actual war in public.
Me? I would rather read Sun Tzu.
Obama is a great student of Alinksy
alinksy made a lot of basic mistakes, though. Ridiculing your opponent acknowledges that they are a threat… better to simply ignore them completely.
democracy *snort*
equality *snort*
don’t be rigid? That only works if you are willing to concede yourselves into nonexistence.
poor people understand democracy perfectly well. That is the problem with democracy.
The GREATEST have-nots are supported by the status quo.
Essentially, Alinsky took the rules of the prince and sun tzu and tried to rewrite them. The problem with that is, it only works to parasitize. It is not a way to actually achieve anything except the destruction of a parent organization, because it is guaranteed to self-destruct.
His ‘radicals’ are utterly guaranteed to destroy themselves within a single lifetime and achieve NOTHING despite appearances of achieving everything.
We need an article/discussion on Timothy McVeigh, his views, and how ROK could have helped or influenced him. I’ve been doing some research on his ideology. He was quite the interesting character, much different than the usual foreign terrorist.
No we don`t.
Dude, not funny.
Timothy McVeigh was a dillbag. He killed a lot of people for no reason. Also couldn’t master the simplest task of not getting pulled over for a traffic ticket the same day as committing a major crime.
ATTENTION:
There are a lot of feminist-trolls here, trying to equate the anti-feminist movement with racism, nazism or anti-semitism.
This they do in order to paint a black picture of us and make the anti-feminist movement out to be something it is not.
If any of you doubt my words, then simply read up on “CHARLES FOURIER” – the man who invented feminism.
Charles Fourier, inventor of feminism, HATED the Jews and wanted jews to do all manual labour in his feminist utopia called “the phallanx”.
So people who hate Jews are thus friends of Charles Fourier.
Charles Fourier invented feminism, so naturally, he is our enemy.
Here you can read up on Charles Fourier, inventor of feminism & thus he is The Great Satan.:
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture21a.html
Yeah, get right with Lindsay Graham and John McCain that’s the ticket.
The queerest Christian-Zionist in the Country and a rabid ankle biting maniac. Jesus Christ almight. Every farm boy from the states who took a bullet in Iraq is on your deranged head and your ilk.
No one cares dude.
Trolling, ridicule and verbal attacks are zionists’ tactic and what the featured article above recommends.
We’re just throwing back the stones, you threw at us.
Learn practical politics (remove race stuff and insert feminism):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQf3rV2qA9A
LMFAO!!! What fuck is this shit?!?? Is this the Training Video they use instruct online Race Trolls or something?! GTFOH!!
^ Poster above sounds like a woman.
The mantra could be adapted to feminism. Not hard to do.
The big thing that jumps out at me not being on the
list is that the message should be so easy to repeat that you can
persuade children to join the march with very simple catch phrases.
These catchphrases are utterly devoid of substance and reasoning, but
they stick, like a meme; you could call it meme-based activism. For
example, “Gays were born that way” or the craze people went through
posting the “=” picture online. The big problem is that the group of
intelligent people out there who oppose left wing propaganda,
pseudoscience, and all utter nonsense in general usually have some
slightly nuanced arguments that tear down the status quo but that are more than 3 words long. Liberals tend to do well because of the
simplicity of their beliefs and the fact that garbagerobbers can join
their army easily.
Does anyone know of any other websites that offer a male perspective, but allow women to also participate? I would have a deeper understanding the men in my life that I care about. Thank you!
Bangbus.com
Thank you, but I’m looking for something that has a blog that addresses issues men care about.
Ridicule should be easy. These people are ridiculous and they over-react in an amusing manner.
Roosh V at his best..
Obama was influenced by the writings and philosophies Saul Alinsky, author of the book, “Rules for Radicals,” and later by Frank Marshall Davis, with similar philosophies.
Barack Obama followed the philosophies of these ‘role models’ throughout his days as a Community Organizer for ACORN, using tactics that appeared to some as ‘shaking down’ businesses in exchange for not branding them ‘hate groups.’
And apparently Obama is still following those radical rules today.
How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:
There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.
The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare — Control health care and you control the people
2) Poverty — Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4)Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
6) Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion — Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.
8) Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
Now, think …
Does any of this sound like what is happening to the United States?
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp#VPlxKch3o2vHwP3q.99
Thanks but if i wanted to learn about proper battlefield strategy i would reread Sun Tzu’s art of war. Alinsky was an effective motivator but then again all the great sociopaths of history have been as well. What do you expect from a guy who paid loving respect to lucifer in the opening of his book? He is a moral anarchist who is burning in hell as we speak.
Doesn’t it worry you that Roosh pushes the Alinsky’s ideas and even follows them?
Another Alinsky’s fan – Obama!
It’s unsettling but i don’t come here for any one writer, i come here for the prevailing view that Men are to be appreciated and not treated as second class citizens by the man hating feminist crowd.
Great post. I’ll be buying this soon.
Wow. Great stuff.
21. Focus your attack a human or corporation, not an idea…
Is this why a fight against feminism fails, while individual battles with feminists works? We must attach feminists, male or female, one by one if necessary and by doing so the ideology is exposed though his or her embodiment of the feminist.
23 Things + 48 Laws of power + Art of War is perhaps the best arsenal for the guerrilla radical.
Isolate and personalize. Yep you can’t fight a concept. Anti-Semites for example can only be attacked as individuals with families and jobs. You can’t actually make them less suspicious of Jewish perfidy. The idea will go on no matter what.
Surprise Surprise
Alinsky is one of ‘god’s choosen people’.
Didn’t see that coming.
It’s quite interesting to note the intersectionality of the Ashkenazi Jews and European foundation DNA. The Mizrahi and Sephardi are much more closely rooted to Africa and Asia. The Ashkenazi tend to be more aggressive and “interlope-y”. A recent article was published about the genetic roots of the Ashkenazi and found that they are the product of “wandering Jew boys” and shiksa converts. Indeed all the characteristics of race traitor harpies and sharp dealing invaders in one biological weapons package. There a hint of racial minority occupied elitism too. Ahhhh… De sufferinks!
It should be called “Rules for Discord.” It’s too bad that Saul wasn’t more interested in governing effectively instead of merely getting people elected or removed.
” The organizer’s job is to inseminate an invitation for himself, to agitate, introduce ideas, get people pregnant with hope and a desire for change and to identify you as the person most qualified for this purpose. ”
Hope and change, that sounds familiar. It think I heard it from a “blank screen” upon which people project what they want to see.
His side won? No it did not. There never has been socialism of any kind in the USA. Not even something close to what Capitalist social Democracies in Western Europe look like. Most of those hippy and so called radicals of the 60s sold out and moved on and bought into the system. Yes many went into the whole identity politricks like gay rights, Feminism, etc. This crap does not threaten Power structures or in anything that involves the economy for the most part. IT IS a brilliant move of divide and conquer. get your population to fragment. Read the book
Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems (American Politics and Political Economy Series)
by Thomas Ferguson (Author)
The central foundational principle of the capitalist nation-state is that it is a reflection of its economic constituencies. Those who own and control the means of production shape the state in the form that they desire. This truism – that money runs politics – is the central argument of Thomas Ferguson’s “Golden Rule.” He begins by asking what are political parties? They are organizations composed of blocs of major investors who come together to advance favored candidates in order to control the state. They do this through direct cash contributions and by providing organizational support through the making available of sources of contacts, fundraisers and institutional legitimation. Candidates are invested in like stocks. For them electoral success is dependent on establishing the broadest base of elite support. Candidates whom have best *internalized* investor values see their “portfolios” grow exponentially at the expense of candidates who have not internalized these values. So what you have is a filtering system in which only the most indoctrinated and business friendly of the intellectual class advance to state power. The higher you go up the ladder the more you’ve appealed to elite interests. Representatives of the major investors are also often chosen to fill political appointments after a favored candidate has achieved office. This political-economic model helps explain why the state largely functions to serve elite business interests on the domestic and international stages.
Of course, corporate interests vary and evolve. Capital-intensive corporations tend to invest in Democratic politicians. Labor-intensive corporations tend to invest in Republicans. That’s because capital-intensive corporations can afford to sit in a party which also represent organized labor. The AFL-CIO rarely poses a threat to Wall Street; and vice-versa. So what would we expect from a system like this? One thing we would expect is that on issues which the public cares about but on which there is cross-party investor agreement no party competition will take place. That means that the issues the public is most interested in will not appear on the agenda. The polls have been pretty consistent on this point. Major public interest revolves around issues having to do with trade agreements, in favor of a single-payer health care system, increased spending for education, slashing the Pentagon budget and many other issues. At times the population has been able to organize successfully and force popular issues onto the agenda despite business opposition.
Ferguson details how the growth, development and fall of major industries correspond to the growth, development, and fall of their political parties. He examines the rise and fall of five major investment bloc party systems – the Federalist vs. Jeffersonian, the Jacksonian, the Civil War party system, the system of 1896 and the New Deal. The latter is dealt with in much detail, while the final chapters also study the elections of 1988 and 1992. The book, while highly informative, is not without its flaws. Ferguson’s prose is a bit dry. The charts are helpful but the ideas could have been presented in a more compact form. Regardless of these reservations, this book is very important for an understanding of how our political system functions.