Posted on 01/06/2019 7:23:04 AM PST by richardtavor
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. 2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. 3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. 4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. 5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. 7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. 8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. 9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. 10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. 11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. 12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. 13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
This is a big one that they use the media to help them with on social issues.
Alinskys techniques are agnostic, they work both ways. Trump applies may of them effectively too. Read them and think about his tweets and this will become apparent.
““Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.”
Sounds like a threat to me.
Dims remind me of the Twilight Zone episode entitled Still Valley.3
I should have figured out how to list them as they are listed in the article, like you did. Thanks! I took the column and drew a line down one side, and then listed the actions that corresponded. It really answers exactly what they are doing, both the Democrats and Trump’s responses.
Uh, mean-ingful.
Are they for sale yet?
LOL!!
Along with that is if you tell a lie often enough a lot of folks will think it is the truth.
This is why they keep bringing up Mexico paying for the wall even though it was just campaign rhetoric. Besides; Mexico is paying for it in other ways but the commie dems will never admit it.
bttt
If anyone needed proof that evil does indeed exist in this world Alinsky provided it. While he’s burning in hell his many followers carry on his destructive policies.
Trump is already using this to good effect with the shutdown - Democrat terror of what their base will do when their subsidies are cut off is worse than anything the benefit recipients will actually be able to do.
The democrat party was bought, many years ago by George Soros and his Gang. They may now be part of his New World Order. They have been living by Rules For Radicals, very obviously from the time of the Clinton Administrations. Now days they are throwing it in our faces. So we’d best elect Conservative Republicans who know how to debunk Rules for Radicals. We do need new blood in our elected Republican Party. The fellow who leads the Senate Republicans usually plays dead when the democrats are marching to the Rules for Radicals.
Alinsky’s rules work with the backing of propaganda.The 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision was unanimous, with two positive and no negative concurrences. Sullivan is a literal interpretation of the black letter of the First Amendment, which says that the government cannot take control of all the presses and thereby promote its interests at the expense of the right of the people to read/listen to opinions/facts contrary to the preferences of government officials. As such, it is perfectly unexceptionable; you couldn’t possibly present SCOTUS with the same facts today, and get a different conclusion.
And yet the effect of Sullivan is pernicious. Why? Because facts not before SCOTUS in 1964 - facts easily demonstrable today - have meant that journalism unanimously favors Alinskyism and opposes constitutionalism. And that journalism - I speak here of national, wire-service-derived, journalism - disproportionately pushes society, and the government, away from constitutional limited government. There are clear reasons for this development. Journalism is unanimous, because journalists are in cahoots to enforce ideological conformity.
Journalists - all people - want to be influential, and journalists therefore have every reason to want to be seen as fonts of wisdom. And yet since the time of Plato, philosophers have known that claiming to be wise is arrogant, and a form of propaganda (links, to breif etymological dictionary definitions, are recommended reading). Rather than claiming wisdom, therefore, journalists have joined together in a sort of mutual admiration society, whose rule is that no ideological diversity exists in journalism. If anyone challenges the objectivity of any journalist in good standing in the group, that person’s reputation will be brought under that society’s unanimous condemnation - and you know what they say about getting into an argument with people "who buy ink by the carload.”
By that mechanism, journalism claims objectivity for itself, and suppresses internal dissent. Which theoretically would be wonderful, if in fact journalism were objective - but journalists know for a fact that they are negative. Journalists are trained to emphasize negative, atypical stories - and lots of them. “If it bleeds, it leads.” “‘Man Bites Dog,’ not ‘Dog Bites Man’.” "Always make your deadline. There’s nothing more worthless than yesterday’s newspaper.” Thus, the claim that journalism is objective is effectively a claim that “negativity is objectivity.” But the claim that “negativity is objectivity” is the very definition of cynicism.
Cynicism is an antonym for “faith,” and is hostility towards conservatism. Although modern “liberals” - actually, socialists - like to use the term “society” when they mean government, government exists only to minimize perceived failings of society. “Society” is more nearly an antonym than a synonym for “government” (see the first paragraph of Common Sense). Journalism is negative, not towards government, but towards society. In fact journalism’s cynicism towards society corresponds to actual naiveté towards government.
The irony of the Constitution is that although it creates a government, it creates limits to that very government. Thus conservatism consists not only in supporting that government, but also in defending the rights of individuals and states against encroachment by that very government. Naiveté towards that government is thus corrosive to the balance which the Constitution strikes. Journalism as we know it is corrosive of liberty . . . and that is a fact not presented to SCOTUS in the Sullivan case.
But obviously, a legal rationale is necessary for SCOTUS to change the presumption created by Sullivan. That rationale exists in the “conspiracy against the public” which is constituted by the "mutual admiration society” aspect of journalism as I have described it. As exemplified in the Associated Press and its membership, wire service journalism constitutes a continuous virtual meeting of journalists spanning a century and a half, and
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam SmithThe case must be made that the wire services are a standing violation of the antitrust laws. The Associated Press formed almost instantly after the demonstration of the telegraph, and wire services were a natural fit with the sudden availability - at a high cost - of instantaneous transmission of news over distance. Accordingly, even when the AP was found to be in violation of the Sherman AntiTrust Act in 1945, the AP was considered “too big to fail.” The difference now is that “expensive” telegraphy bandwidth is now dirt cheap - two bucks and conserving telegraphy bandwidth buys you a cup of coffee.SCOTUS must find that members of the AP are not independent of the AP, of each other, and ultimately not independent of any other journalist participating in any other wire service. Thus, a report from one wire service journalist is not presumptively independent confirmation of a report from any other. And repeating some other journalist’s libel is not a defense. And journalism is not presumptively independent of the Democrat Party, either. In fact, journalism produces a propaganda wind, and it is only natural that a political party should align itself with journalism’s ideological tendency. Therefore no agency of the government (e.g., the FCC and especially the FEC) can function on the assumption of journalistic objectivity.
Because journalism is not independent of the Democrat Party, the effect of Sullivan - the effect of suppressing the ability of politicians to sue for libel - is far from apolitical in effect. Just as a law against sleeping under bridges - altho applicable to rich and poor alike - actually affects only the poor, the ability or inability to sue for libel affects only Republicans. Democrats don’t get libeled. There was no suggestion of this fact, AFAIK, in the case brought by Sullivan against the NY Times in 1964. It was not nearly as well established at that time as it is now, and Mr. Sullivan was a (Southern) Democrat.
The Republican Party should bring action in federal court to assert the above facts and implications.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.