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.
Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have. Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.
For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics:
Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: 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.
The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
The seventh rule is: 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...
The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative...
The twelfth rule: 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."
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck....
It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target....
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability--where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.
Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.
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.
[He says your target should be a person in the organization you are opposing; a face within the opposition for you to focus on; it must be someone with power within the organization, like the CEO, school superintendent, governor, or something like that.]
Return to Anarchy for Anybody
(Of course, my Dad's a Truman Democrat so go figure.)
This is stuff we better be learning. I have been thinking about this subject all through the Clinton years. Republicans who know the truth but won't get their hands dirty doing the organizing and fighting the fights are worse that deluded Democrats IMHO.
I personally will never again be a passive observer of our government. And anyone who thinks that G.W. is the political Messiah is saddly deluded. He is a good place to start building but he is not the answer. He is just possibly the beginning of the right questions....if we are lucky.
carpio,
In Liberty
Great post by the way.
BUMP
Kick em in the teeth!
Note: "Hillary!" Rodham (Pre-Clinton), while at Wellesley, studied Saul Alinsky, whose ideas provided the organizing thesis for her (mysteriously unavailable) Senior Honors Paper.(!)
This is the absolute truth!
Heads up!
Note: "Hillary!" Rodham (Pre-Clinton), while at Wellesley, studied Saul Alinsky, whose ideas provided the organizing thesis for her (mysteriously unavailable) Senior Honors Paper.(!)
This is the absolute truth!
Heads up!
Learn the tactics & strategy of the enemy!
BUMP
This is precisely what my new site will be about. The three principles of politcal warfare. AGITPROP (agitation and propaganda) and sabotage. Being a ex-marxist-leninist (a long time ago) I have a lot to teach my conservative brethren. I have been screaming about this for ages. Now that the right has waken up to the leftist scam we had better learn how to fight back. 2002 will not be a cakewalk, the left will come back with a vengeance. The never sleep and never rest. In the words of Mao tse Tung "enemy attacks we retreat, enemy rests we harrass, enemy retreats we attack".
First, buy the book - $23.95 at Amazon FedEx.
The seventh rule is: 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...
Gore has failed Rule 7 - he has spent too much time in court
The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative...
Gore has failed Rule 11. He pushed through to the positive (for us) side of the Courts - we have won the cases.
BUMP
BUMP. I think this is an important post.
TM- Thanks for the flag.
Thumper1960, - I thought that your reply deserved its own thread.....WOSG has done it for you.
WOSG - Thanks for posting it.
Restore the republic!
the real work is only beginning...........Covenantor
BUMP
This is Goooood stuff ! Real eye opener. Sort of the Abbie Hoffman "steal this book" version of anarchy by mindphuc !! Whats your take on the court's today ? I was in the salt mine all evening and need to be refreshed on the honest unbiased and true facts aka your version..........
Algore got both barrels. He's a big bull that's been pole axed and is dead but doesn't know it yet.
BUMP
BUMP
This is all crap, and a recipe for disaster in the long term, just as we are now seeing in the opposition. Nor are ex-Marxist Leninists reliable 'advisors' on anything save their old errors, which included, by the way, thinking they had the whole truth then, just as they now think they do now by adhering to what they think is its opposition or complement or "contradiction":
Nope, that's inventiveness, innovation, and improvisation.
"Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them....
Nope. That's "social science" (hehe) and is usually a disaster in "real life". Huns were tactical geniuses, dressed in their field-mice skins and riding their strong, nimble, small horses. They were very successful for a time, wherever they chose to ride, but arguably unconscious of what made them so, not only "tactically" but otherwise.
"In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give..."
Nope. It's also the why and when and where and how much. And, insofar as it can be learned, it's a "skill". The "art" part can't be taught or learned, only developed, for better or worse.
Need I continue analyzing this trash?
It is perhaps useful to know what the "enemy" is up to, otherwise it is utterly worthless, in my humble opinion, and the moment Conservatives adopt such a view of "tactics", they will begin to decay into the intellectual and spiritual worthlessness of their worst enemies.
Regards. S&W R.I.P.
It won't matter, Al Gore has become a liability to his side. Stalinists eat their children and despise failure. After this morass they will retreat to lick their wounds and in short time they will work harder to make sure all the dead vote in the next election. It's time to strike back while the iron is hot. They have gotten arrogant to the point they believe elections are an entitlement program that only they should win. Do you believe this people willingly give up power once they have it ? No way.
We have to attack in the deepest democratic areas. Launch agitation and porpaganda operations in minority areas. Buying TV commercial time just doesn't cut, we are not selling tothpaste here. Wars are fought and won by ground troops (activists and zealots). You have to physically take territory. We have to evangelize and convert as if our lives depended on it (they do). In a short time we have to have our own version of Patrice Lumumba University on the web.
fix font
First know your enemy
I do believe you make some valid points. Tactics are simply general rules. The best military commanders in history have always been those who have been able to improvise. However, they also understood tactics. But, because you are willing to fight an enemy by understanding the manner and design of their ways does not mean becoming like him. We fought Hitler and the Japanese with equal ferocity (less the atrocities), we learned tank warfare from the germans and used it against them, etc. etc., But it should be pointed out that we are no longer engaged in fighting the party of Roosevelt or Truman. It was hijacked slowly since the 50's by people who operate under the precept that most of us are simpetons and fools and that by keeping us ignorant they will win. When someone in a boxing match no longer operates by the marquis of Queensberry rules it becomes a street fight and different rules apply. The conservatives can longer afford to keep playing by gentlemens' rules when the other side abandoned those a long time ago. That is a recipe for diaster and prepetual defeat.
fix font
BUMP
As Patton said, "I read your book, you b^st^rd."
There were heated threads about the Alinsky method and Labor organizing 2 summers ago on FR. I have those threads bookmarked on my old computer. So for me they are lost in time. There were also Jennings-Bryant populism threads going at that time. So, this isn't the first time these ideas have moved across FR, and some of the knowledge has worn off on FR if only in an indirect way.
Launch agitation and porpaganda operations in minority areas.
You must be daft! How about checking into purchases by these local city/county police departments regarding riot gear purchases/philosophy first!
BUMP
Oh, I agree with that—Gentlemen Jim rules are for matches between Gentlemen Jims.
What I am saying is that "tactics" is a skill, teachable and learnable, but it says nothing about what one is fighting for, and these people use lies, for example, and distortions and untruths and oversimplifications at every turn, and that really is their "tactics", from beginning to end, which is exactly what the above is about.
Consider, for example, the use of the term "have nots". There is no such thing, for if they were really "have nots", they would have nothing to fight the supposed "haves " with, would they?
In fact, this is a tactical manual about how to produce and focus "resentment" in fools that can be easily manipulated toward one's goals, which are utterly exterior to the supposed "have nots" they exploit to reach them.
I didn't bother with the rest because it's so transaparently worthless.
And this not how or why we beat Hitler or the Japanese, eh?
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
The best discussion on AgitProp I've seen on FR __________
PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES
And to finish it off, a statement by JimRob in Nov. 1998 that supports your position on this.
BTTT
And to finish it off, a statement by JimRob in Nov. 1998 that supports your position on this.
First off, let me just state that I am not familiar with Alinsky (shame on me ) I must have been out that day. I am not one to state that one should read a book and go by it or adopt rules with strict adherence. I am only suggesting that we understand the nature of the enemy and what he is about. If a safecracker has figured out how to open your safe it is not just a matter of changing the combination but of re-designing the lock. I have managed a number of politcal campaigns on both sides. Once a conservative democrat runnig for assembly in a minority district (yes he was a minority, black, before you ask). I have also managed other assembly campaigns , a state senate race and a US senate race. I have played this game before. However, I can add that I was never a traditionalist and utilized different tacticts and did manage to throw the opposition off. However, the political game has changed radically in then last ten years. While the democrats have gotten more proficient at coming up with some rather innovative ways of running campaigns in many areas republicans have fallen behind. If there is a pattern I notice on the other side is that they are employing more and more variations on radical strategy and organizational tacticts than they did before. Before you can understand what the color CYAN is someone must point it out to you. That is the only validity of understanding how the other side operates. He reads the same books on tactics, but like in a game of chess there are many variations on the sicilian defense and not all players know them all. the best chess players improvise and come up with variations their opponents haven't thought of.
Thanks. I have Bookmarked it for later reading. I try never to read while in a dead faint and I am now in my 20th hour of being on the go.
carpio
What is in the link useful only to know what the enemy does, and to know how best to inoculate those whose support you want against it.
It is considerably less sophisticated in some areas than ancient rhetoric and sophistic, which had many of the same methods developed to a subtilty few moderns not versed in it have any inkling of.
Propaganda almost never wins shooting wars, for example, or Europe would be speaking German. It produces enough of them though.
Go off in this direction as a positive mode to spread American values and conservatism and we are doomed.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
I understand what you are saying. Esentially you are merely repating the fact that the other side the rules of Josef Goebbels "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth", but that rule also works in reverse. "Repeat the truth often enough and it remains the truth".
Of course I am oversimplifying as to why we defeated the germans and japanese. But George Patton had also read Hans Guderian's "Achtung Panzer" and understood the theory behind tank warfare that the germans were employing.
You are right in determining that our ideology and ideals were a factor in defeating the enemy. However, the nemy also had his ideals and ideaology. Political warfare is in many ways like religion and like any religion it can only spread through evangelism. It works for the Muslims today and it has worked for the Christian church for 2 thousand years. We had better start trying to convert people to basic beliefs in our constituion and educating them. Running TV commercials as if we are selling toothpaste won't sell our product.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Good news, friends...If the liberals are forced to remain within the experience of their 'people', then they are bound to fail on there own...When you think about all of the implications of rule 2...when losing, litigate, assasinate, destroy, whine, use the race-card, obstruct, etc. etc. etc...the whole mantra of liberalism unfolds. Think about it...Liberalism is destructive in every from, and by remaining so bound by it, they cut their own throats.
And yes, I admit, liberals confuse me, but they never cause me fear or retreat!!!
Does anyone have a bigger pic or link to this scary damn photo ??
"You are right in determining that our ideology and ideals were a factor in defeating the enemy. However, the nemy also had his ideals and ideaology. Political warfare is in many ways like religion and like any religion it can only spread through evangelism. It works for the Muslims today and it has worked for the Christian church for 2 thousand years. We had better start trying to convert people to basic beliefs in our constituion and educating them. Running TV commercials as if we are selling toothpaste won't sell our product." We disagree. Our "ideology" was not a factor in defeating the enemy at all, because beyond certain sorely tested values, we had no ideology.
"Evangelism" is not how religions spread, or at least, there is only one lasting and succssful way to evangelize and both you and I know what it is. Example.
We don't need to convert people to basic beliefs in the Constitution. We need to show, again by example, what those basic rights recognized by the Constitution are, and why they are so superior, once lived, to anything that can be given away by a "government" or "regime"—after it has been taken away from them in the first place, of course—to its "subjects".
Alinsky and Psy-Ops and the rest is all garbage, save you yourself want to win only fools to your cause.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
try this link for a bigger picture
I did a little reverse engineering
Let me pose this question to you... Name a group of conservatives that have put out activism manuals in any form that try to counter-act Alinsky's methods.
I don't know of any that aren't religious based and targeted. That's not the demographic Conservatives must take on in the coming 23 months until the ought-2 elections.
These methods can be used, adapted, counteracted against, but they must be know to the street level activists if they are to be prepared for what comes ahead of us.
FR.com will be villified by the media as soon as they lick their wounds and get back in the rink. That simply means they will put up a large number of trial balloons using different blends of agitprop until they find one that sticks. All of this will be focus-grouped, slick, and repeated daily.
All I'm saying is that these documents that have been on the bookshelves of Democrat activists for 30+ years need wider exposure if the Conservative movement is to continue to own the street.
The photo is much larger on the NRA's new magazine, where it first appeared. I have only a small black and white scanner, or I'd scan it for you.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
Thank You Very Much ...... I saw the ad in an October American Rifleman and have been searching for the pic since. I owe you one steak dinner when and if you ever come through the Texas Panhandle.
Thank You again..... Now I'm gonna use it to scare some fence sitter's....
I respectfully have to disagree, however, it does not seem we will come to any agreement on this. Evangelism is the only way in which religions gain new converts. You can simply view this as evidenced for example in the spread of the balck muslim religion. The greatest spread of christianity occurs in areas where evangelism is most concentrated.
simply because we live lives a certain way will not convince people that they should follow our example. If that were true most of the muslim world would have adopted western culture and values.
It is difficult to express the correcteness of constituional principles of liberty etc.. on people who have never read the constituion or have no understanding of the underlying principles of our republic. Our public education system has become an engine of indoctrination rather than education. Most high school graduates today have little if any concept of the noation of separation of powers or laizes faire capitalism etc.. Where education in these matters is lacking we must fill in the gaps.
I am still looking for the question. Your "name" etc. is an imperative.
As a matter of fact, we've already got them running. When they started yelling "Republican Mob Action", I knew they were in deep doo-doo.
It's like "Convention of Anarchists", only it actually makes sense, since they are out there defending what each of usenjoys individually, and among other things that includes meaningful law and a Constitution that recognizes basic human feedoms.
Not only that, in so far as they behaved lawfully, the "Republican mob" was only a sign of what armed free citizens might accomplish once there was no law and Constitution at all, but only what the Communists and their dupes in "power"(hehe) call "law" and the "Constitution", and so forth.
Think about it.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
The Muslims, after initial conversions in Saudi Arabia by a small group, evangelized mainly by conquest and force, excepting peoples of the Book, and even for them—by making "conversion" materially and socially advantageous.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
Historically that is true, however the main impetus of new converst to islam today in many parts of africa for example is through the evangelism of muslims. We may also look at a primary example right here in the united states. The predominant spread of islam in the balck community in the last 25 years has come about because of the active evangelism of muslims to gain more converts. They are certainly not converting by the sword.
Cacique did just that for me friend thanks for the try / assist. I'm now armed with my new Placard for the next Bush Rally !!
Agreed. Even with the imperative part. Working on 18+ hours now, so I'm not ready to take on this debate.
As far as the Democrat's calling us "Rent a Mob's", you hit upon a point I haven't seen brought up yet. Perception is reality, and Democrats see Republican protestors in a peaceful protest, but perceive each and every one of them as gun weilding revolutionary Nazi's of some sort. To keep up the appearance, they are directed to FR.com and find daily threads about guns ammo, secession, CWII and other assorted theories of the Republic. Nadler's "whiff of fascism" comment was in this analysis a political slip, in so much as he said what he was actually thinking.
How long before the web site your linking here is fully operational ?
No, they were not converting by the sword. In a sense, however, they were not converting anyone to "Islam" at all, but to an idiosyncratic American variant,"Muslim" only in imagery. And, from my own experience with Black Muslims, I can tell you they were converting mostly by example, paticularly by abolutely clean living, no alcohol or dope, hard work, a supporting community, and self-defense.
I am thinking especially of Wallace Muhammad's group, begun by his father as the variant, but moved early by him and his adherents into orthodox Sunni Islam.
They certainly were not converting by words or arguments, I can tell you that.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
Given commitements elsewhere and not hanging out at FR so much, I'd say we will have our initial material on-line by sometime next week.
The radicals -- including Al Gore -- have lost.
It does us well to understand their tactics, but it is not wise to emulate the tactics of losers.
There is a half truth in what you say, I do not deny that. However, evangelism does play a role in the conversion process and it has some success, otherwise they would not waste their time in the streets prosletizing with the Holy Q'uran in their hands. The Sunni variant is BTW the fastest growing islamic religion in the black community these days. I have worked with some black muslim groups in community projects and I can tell you that they do quite a bit of active evangelism.
I've bookmarked and will check in often. Thanks again.
Yep—if that had been a "Democrat mob", they would have been paid, and fighting for what they could get "for themselves", or so they think, by rioting and intimidation.
We're stupid enough to fight for free—and for freedom—and as, no less than Napoleon himself said, probably in relation to the Russians, "Stupidity is invincible".
I've worked eighteen hours a day many times in the past. Still doing it, but most of it now is voluntary and for pay
Now that's really stupid, ain't it?
Best regards. S&W RI.P.
Merely a temporary defeat, not a permament one. One would have thought that the collapse of the Soviet Union and it's empire would have convinced people to stop believing in failed utopias. 50 years of worthless welfare state policies subsidizing poverty and keeping minorities in perpetual poverty has not convinced them of the worthlessnes of their cause. As long as a large mass of people have no material interest in the benefits of a society they have little incentive to defend it.
WHO CARES???without financial teeth, boycott, it means jack.
"There is a half truth in what you say..."
No doubt there are people "converted" by the "Book" as a material thing, as opposed to the living example.
Are those the "converts" who will fight when another "book", also material and a prop, comes along? Or won't they conveniently just "convert" again?
Will they convert also when a more subtle and technical book of "tactics" is used on them?
As a matter of fact, one of the greatest tacticians of evangelism and Christian propaganda, Ramon Lull, got almost nowhere with the Muslims, mainly, in my humble opinion, because he relied too much on subtle arguments and so forth, that could best any Muslim scholar or philosopher in debate.
He won a lot of debates no doubt. But few converts.
I am by the way not disturbed by "half a truth". I don't pretend to know the whole on this particular subject or any other, and I am always glad to learn.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
Oops—"Still doing it, but most of it now is voluntary and not for pay...."
As I said, really stupid.
Regards to all. S&W R.I.P.
Re:#56.
Precisely.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
True the prop is the bait at the end of a hook. Nor do I pretend to know it all. My father who was trained as a physicist used to tell me all the time that when he died he would die a very ignorant man. I believe I will go the same way. All human experience is subjective and it all depends a great deal on what experiences we bring as indivduals. The only empirical evidence that we can work with is that which we have dug up ourselves. One thing I have learned in any advertising campaign is "know your target audience". I am not familiar with Lull but I imagine he was not familiar with his target audience. Black muslim are succesful because they know their target audience. I imagine that if they tried to convert out of the communities in which they live they would abismally fail also. That is why I beleive that if we are to work in certain communities such as the black community for example the recruitment must be made by blacks living in that community and the message has to be tailored to their experience.
Gotta go.
I'm not sure it's knowing their target audience so much, as it is their target audience knowing them.
Advertising works best when the "product" sells itself.
American "Liberty", as I keep repeating, is, in my humble opinion, a hard sell. But once lived and understood, most just won't settle for anything less.
Great fun talking with you.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
I have to go too. Being a proletariat is a bitch sometimes, but somone has to do it. Need my rest. We'll continue this at some other time.
Hitlery Rob-'em, was old Saul's accolight; sat at his knee, so to speak , and soaked ALL of this stuff up. The Hippies, Yippie ( led by Red Diaper babies like David Howrowitz, Abbie Hoffman, et al ) used this method extenssively ! It is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY past time that WE turn the tables on them.
Good article! Reads like a modern revision of Sun Tzu's The Art of War.
Freedom lovers generally, and Republicans specifically need to stop trying to "compromise" and playing nicey-nice with the Constitution-shredders and take a stand.
These are very effective tactics that we need to start learning.
The leftists have been slinging their $h!t in our faces for so long now, it's time to throw it back in theirs!
Good points, but I think this is the reason that conservatives and Constitutionalists have been losing the war.
They are so repulsed by the "tactics" of the left that they won't even consider taking the gloves off every once in a while. They kick us when we're down, and we say "thank you, can I have another?" The left will not stop their attack until we realize that we have to get "down 'n dirty" every now and then.
This is WAR, not a polite debate anymore.
Thanks, C.
Thanks, WOSG.
You don't have to agree with Alinsky's politics. But, you can see what his tactics have allowed the Left to do. They have been successful in their agenda, thus far. Given the reprehensible nature of their political beliefs, Alinsky's tactics and rules have allowed them to get further that they otherwise would have.
It is true that these are the rules the radical left lives by in this country. However, if the conservatives adopt them as well, they will doom us. All law has its foundation, its presuppositions from which all tactics follow. If we use the left's tactics, its presuppositions will eventually destroy our conservative foundation. Our Founders conducted a war of Independence without appealing to the radical Enlightenment of the time that resulted just a few years later in the French Revolution. If they can, we can. However, it takes study to form our own conservative political framework. As well it takes men and women willing to speak clearly to the radical left about their immoral foundations. Since many in our ranks have the same sexual immorality, it will be impossible to do this until we have different leadership. Again, I say, the taking of leftist tactics, while allowing us to win in the short term, will ultimately destroy the conservative movement.
During the late sixties, a fashion on university campuses was 'gorilla theatre'. It was termed an 'agga prop' (agitation motivational stimuli). It was a successful, because it skillfully played to student fears at the time (the draft, military discipline, death, authority) without directly commenting on those fears. Let the observer do that themselves. It was gorilla in the sense that it was planned to appear to be a spontaneous happening, and was best acted out in the center of an unrelated public gathering to bring attention to 'the cause'.
Personally, I have no problem with folks who are willing to make use of a very successful sixties type political action to bring a Constitutionalist message to America.
Saul Alinsky was a god to radicals of the time, most of whom later came to be known as the 'third way', and who now dominate the democrat party.
I got lucky. I was pulled in a different direction.
"Chad" Gore is nothing but a spoiled brat that thougt he was ENTILTED to be president.
Kick em in the teeth!
Then do it again and again and again. I note that even as of this morning the Rats are still holding on.
Stay well - Yorktown
We have known Hillary to be a student of Saul Alinsky in her youth. Looking at her whitehouse circle and her tactics she has been using Alinsky in Bill's political life all along and now her own. Grouping the black churches and preaching separation and hatred is a dangerous thing. Hillary passed this method of campaigning on to Albert Gore Jr. The aim of Hillary is take make segments of the USA furious with one another while she gets the rewards. Nobody is watching her advancing through the ranks carrying her ideology that will collapse the American Republic. She has a plan folks and New York gave her a huge boost.
308 pages
Broadman & Holman Publishers; ISBN: 0805423478 ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.74 x 8.97 x 6.03
Book Description
The New York Times is the nation's recognized newspaper of record. Through its unparalleled status as the nation's journalistic "bible," and the frequent replication of its views and articles in other media, the Times is literally on our doorstep every day. However, what is not known is that the Times, far from being "objective," is subtly promulgating its own comprehensive worldview and value system, which runs counter to the personal beliefs of many Americans. In The Gospel According to the New York Times, author Bill Proctor exposes the Times' belief system unveiling the mechanism of "Culture Creep," which the Times uses to promote its views.
About the Author
" We could eliminate the Jewish danger in our culture because the people had recognized it as the result of our propaganda.."
"And propaganda must be learned. It must be led only by people with a fine and sure instinct for the often changeable feelings of the people. They must be able to reach into the world of the broad masses and draw out their wishes and hopes. The effective propagandist must be a master of the art of speech, of writing, or journalism, of the poster and of the leaflet. He must have the gift to use the major methods of influencing public opinion such as the press, film and radio to serve his ideas and goals, above all in an age of advancing technology."
Goebbels at Nuremberg -- 1934. Reichstagung in Nürnberg 1934 (Berlin: Vaterländischer Verlag C. A. Weller, 1934), pp. 226-246.
[Translation copyright © 2000 by Randall Bytwerk]The AMASSED Media, such as FACE THE uriNATION, who produce the continuous stream of disinformazia /YELLOW JOURNALISM by the nomenklatura / DEMONCRATS, for the Verbraucherschicht / SHEEPLE must be countered via samidatz / FreeRepublic and der Boykott.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]
"And anyone who thinks that G.W. is the political Messiah is saddly deluded. He is a good place to start building but he is not the answer."
The number one tactic of the left has always been incrementalism. Every step is always "a good first step". Like a boa constrictor, they don't crush their victims, they merely take up the slack each time it exhales.
Our side, unfortunately, has always tended towards and "all or nothing" stance, and the end result has always been -- predictably -- nothing.
With that in mind, it occurs to me that Dubya is "a good first step."
I bought the book, and have been reading it. The tactics are, to a large degree, applicable to what we're doing. I would recommend it for any Freeper's home library
Pick the target. Freeze it. Personalize it. Polarize it.
I clipped some of the links and info from those discussions back then. I'll try and find them. My opinion is that these tactics do not work for conservatives. They are the tactics of people who have no controlling legal or moral authority, and who rely on people's ignorance and divisions for their success. I believe these tactics can win out over truth and righteousness only temporarily. Their weakness lies in their exposure, and this age of free flowing facts and information makes them obsolete.
Here's one of the old threads --
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a369fce891bf4.htm
Here's a quote I clipped back then --
Saul Alinsky wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971).
Rules for Radicals opens with a quote about Lucifer, written by Saul Alinsky: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.”
Pick the target. Freeze it. Personalize it. Polarize it.
I clipped some of the links and info from those discussions back then. I'll try and find them. My opinion is that these tactics do not work for conservatives. They are the tactics of people who have no controlling legal or moral authority, and who rely on people's ignorance and divisions for their success. I believe these tactics can win out over truth and righteousness only temporarily. Their weakness lies in their exposure, and this age of free flowing facts and information makes them obsolete.
Here's one of the old threads --
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a369fce891bf4.htm
Here's a quote I clipped back then --
Saul Alinsky wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971).
Rules for Radicals opens with a quote about Lucifer, written by Saul Alinsky: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.”
The number one tactic of the left has always been incrementalism.
Also a long-term tactic from Russian thinking. Their national game, after all, is chess, where the tactic is to try to get little advantages and hold onto them, until your position finally becomes too good for the other side to have a chance against you.
Thus, in the con-control arena, the tactic has been to pass laws incrementally restricting people's 2nd Amendment rights, and NEVER, EVER allowing any of them to be repealed.
I have read with interest all of the above posts. First, let me preface this by saying simply;
Tactics have no ideology, they are neither right nor left, nor for the most part with some exceptions neither good nor bad.
First, know your enemy, Sun Tsu
I find the argument that adopting the tactical perspective of the enemy will debase us to be rather questionable. It is like saying we fight with sticks and stones, the enemy has swords and bows and arrows, if we adopt swords and bows and arrows we will debase ourselves and become like them. That is and always will be a losing argument.
First, we must separate our virtues from our weapons. Our virtues alone will not win any battles. If that were true, we would have won this election by a landslide, we did not. The idea that the enemy is on the run is delusional. You cannot wipe out 50 years of indoctrination and conditioning by the momentary outrage that is occurring today. This country has been severely split and will continue to be so as long as the enemy continues to employ the policy of divide and conquer by the use of Stalin's "salami tactics". They are successful because they appeal to the basest emotional instincts in people.
Conservatives continue to delude themselves that since we have the superior intellectual argument people will by using their own intellect simply come to our side. Not so, if that were true we would not even be having this discussion. Goebbels and Madison avenue discovered a long time ago that a large segment of the population can be influenced simply by the constant appeal to the basest instincts. Companies spend billions of dollars on advertising every year to prove that point. People in the short term are essentially sheep and mass demagogues have proven that in history time after time.
Perhaps tactics is the wrong word to use, perhaps approach is better in order. Where the enemy seeks to divide we must seek to unite. Where the enemy repeats lies, we must repeat truth. Rather than make long winded intellectual arguments we must distill it into a short phrase and repeat it time after time.
The idea that having liberty alone will suffice and make people fight for it is delusional at best. Throughout history free peoples have lost their freedom to sociopaths and demagogues who through the use of propaganda and brute force have achieved power. Fear is a compulsive argument in the short run.
I have lived under authoritarianism. The last memories I have of my native land was being under house arrest with my mother with soldiers guarding the house. Simple conscripts who did what soldiers have been trained and conditioned to do throughout history, obey orders. We fool ourselves if we believe that having laws and justice on our side is the only element we need. Laws and constitutions have and are being manipulated all over the world as we speak for the selfish interests of those who hold power. When those who rule over us have no respect for such laws and rules they become debased.
We cannot continue to fight this battle by promoting our virtue alone and assume that the world will see the righteousness of our cause. If that were the case, the entire world would be living under a constitutional representative republic, they do not. The spirit of freedom and liberty lives on everywhere, but as Tienamen proved, it can be easily cowered by tanks bullets and fear.
We are far from victorious, we have been given a respite by providence. The enemy is far from vanquished and still as lethal. We must stop going to gunfights unarmed. The best weapon to hunt elephants with is still an elephant gun. The best way to eat an elephant is still one bite at a time.
bump
Pretty good stuff. I like this one: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
bump
Hillary's graduation thesis contained the core of Saul Alinsky's revolutionary tactics to destroy our democratic system. Hillary's work was done before Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" was published. Alinsky offered Hillary employment but she alleged that she was much more useful to their cause working on the outside.
Hillary's graduation thesis contained the core of Saul Alinsky's revolutionary tactics to destroy our democratic system. Hillary's work was done before Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" was published. Alinsky offered Hillary employment but she alleged that she was much more useful to their cause working on the outside.
b
Gratifying to see the commentary.
I disagree with buying the book. Better to defund the Left. Plenty of internet sources.
The First book on strategy to buy, is the Sun-Tzu's "Art of War". I haven't read David Horowitz' book, but I expect he is taking some of the lessons in war/strategy and showing uses in politics. I read his pamphlet version. It is well worth reading for all.
Newt himself had some commentary back in the heady days of the 104th about how to break the desired plitical changes into a heirarchy, as is done in business management, military strategy, etc. He invoked Eisenhower, but it's fairly obvious and clear stuff. The heirarchy Newt invoked:
"Vision - Goals - Strategy - Tactics"
Vision - e.g. "A free and civil Republic; limited Government; constitutionally protected rights; "
Goals - e.g. End voter fraud; realign the media to be fro-freedom and not Left-Liberal bootlickers; pass tax cuts; get a Constitutionalist majority on the court; end multiculturalistic conformity in the form of Federal regulations; make Liberals-Leftists a permanent minority in Congress and Conservatives a majority; etc.
Strategy - For each goal, determin *HOW* to get it done, e.g. to create a Conservative majority, focus on a strategy to win elections; this in turn creates sub-goals, which have their own strategy, etc.
Tactics - The Tools, bag-o-tricks, techniques and block-and-tackle efforts needed to WIN.
Now we know the Demo-crap way: Masters of Spin; use of media; intimidation; smear campaigns. We need to adopt only those techniques that are aligned with our values and help us win. Lying and vote-stealing are not aligned with our values, and Conservatives have a core value that the end does *not* justify the means; that may close off some tactics open to the Radical Left, but there are many effective ways still left open. For example, you may not lie, but getting YOUR VERSION OF THE TRUTH out there early and agressively will put the debate on your terms, and is far more effective.
Putting it all together: We need to know what we want - what our vision and goals are; we need to know how to get where we want to be; and we need to ACT, and engage in those techniques to effectively get there. Learning how the "other side" does it is a necessary part of getting that understanding.
... US senate race. I have played this game before. ... However, the political game has changed radically in then last ten years. While the democrats have gotten more proficient at coming up with some rather innovative ways of running campaigns in many areas republicans have fallen behind. If there is a pattern I notice on the other side is that they are employing more and more variations on radical strategy and organizational tacticts than they did before.
Since you ran some campaigns before, maybe you can answer one question that has been bugging me. Repbulicans seems woefully unable to run against Democratic Liberal women. Look at recent Senate races. Boxer, Hillary!, Stabenow, Carnahan. These all have been winnable races, imho, and we flubbed 'em. What could be done to turn this around?
... these are the rules the radical left lives by in this country. However, if the conservatives adopt them as well, they will doom us. All law has its foundation, its presuppositions from which all tactics follow. If we use the left's tactics, its presuppositions will eventually destroy our conservative foundation.
We should be open to any and all tactics THAT ARE ALIGNED WITH OUR VALUES. If we respect Property Rights, we don't do Earth First spiking. etc. I respectfully disagree that simply adopting techniques of "the other side" will make us them inherently. American car-makers adopted Just-in-time from the Japanese, who in turn got it and Total Quality Management from Edward Deming, an American. It didn't make the American cars Japanese or vice versa. The techniques did however shift the competitive advantage considerably.
Fundamentally, your point has a kernel of truth : We cannot let "winning" tactics turn us away from our values and our vision of what is right. If we turn away from our values, then we have become what we are fighting.
. As well it takes men and women willing to speak clearly to the radical left about their immoral foundations. Since many in our ranks have the same sexual immorality, it will be impossible to do this until we have different leadership. Hmmm, the left uses the reality that no human fully lives up to their ideals to Great Advantage. If we wait for angels, all the real, sinful humans will be washed away and propagandized to the others side. In fact, it a point mentioned by Alinsky.
I think you miss the point entirely that tactics are derived from philosophical foundations. "Winning tactics" as you so call them are only such in the short term. For instance, Clinton's bald faced lying (derived from his belief that there is no absolute truth aside from winning) worked miraclously throughout his administration to get him out of trouble. For our side to adopt this type of propaganda as now is the pattern of the Democrats will not further our cause, even if we get it believed by a majority of the people. It is only a short term tactic. When lying is adopted by the whole society and no one knows what is true, all order is broken and no government can rule. Adopting a winning tactic will in the end succeed in bringing us to the same end as the left desires, the end of the old order. By calling on moral men, I am not overlooking man's inherent sinfulness; however, men who are actively sexually immoral cannot fight against the left since it is fundamentally opposed to conservative values. Such men and women have already sold out to the other side even though their heads may not be there yet. [Sexual immorality is the first step in political revolution. Check out De Sade.] Does anyone doubt the reason why the Congress could not impeach Clinton was due to all the skeletons chattering in the cloak rooms of the Senate?
Thanks for the heads up!
Lying is not a tactic in my view, it is simply an act. Goebbels simply stated that repeating a lie eventually makes it a truth merely by the repetition of it. The obverse is also true. Repeating the truth keeps it the truth. We assume that the truth need only be stated once because it is obvious. But if a lie is not answered and is repeated it is the lie that remains in the minds of people. The tactic in reply is the same, one side rpeats lies, we simply must repeat the truth. A diffcult but not impossible proposition when we don't have control of the media.
Running a male candidate against a female of any party is a difficult proposition at best. We are still a male oriented society with victorian pre-conceptions. We still must deal with females with reverence. In the back of our minds it could be our mother or sister. A female candidate has a distinct advantage coming out. She and her minions can attack with impunity, but the reply by a male candidate must be measured without falling into the trap of being called sexist. He has to deal with a provaocation differently than he would had his opponent been male. In my view the only way to effectively dismiss this advantage is to have an equaly competent and strong female candidate against your adversary. I am generalising of course, there are always exceptions, but given all things are equal running against women is more difficult than normal.
bump
You are correct. You must read Alinsky to understand your enemies. I am always shocked by so many who think of politics as a game, it is no game.
My family is from China and we know that politics is deadly. If your side loses you don't wait for another election. At best, you become an exile, and at worst, you die.
Never forget that if they had their way, they would eliminate us all.
Bump
Vanity Bump
Bump
Beep, Beep !!
Boing, Boing !!
bump
I think in the current climate, one should consider in addition to Saul Alinsky's rantings, the rantings of another book: Earth in the Balance. Combining these two, one has the current tactics aligned with a goal that is global in nature, and makes pale in comparison any notion of laws, local or national.
Thanks for the clarification & reminder. Your comments are consitent with what I have read. Alinsky is a Hillary mentor, in any event.
I think you miss the point entirely that tactics are derived from philosophical foundations.
Au contraire. I do see it. See my reply #90. Tactics derive from strategy, goals, and vision. What tactics will help us win our goals? That is the question.
"Winning tactics" as you so call them are only such in the short term. For instance, Clinton's bald faced lying ...
"Lying" is not aligned with our values, so it is a behavior, as "tactic" or anything else, that we should reject.
bttt
Restore the republic!
the real work is only beginning...........Covenantor
Agreed.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
"'Pick the target. Freeze it. Personalize it. Polarize it.'
....My opinion is that these tactics do not work for conservatives. They are the tactics of people who have no controlling legal or moral authority, and who rely on people's ignorance and divisions for their success. I believe these tactics can win out over truth and righteousness only temporarily. Their weakness lies in their exposure...."
Exactly.
And, however much one repeats it as if it is blatantly and incontrovertibly "true", the proposition that "perception is reality", and the whole of it, as well as being infinitely manipulatable—and at will—by the cunning tactician—this may be subject to an ultimately more persuasive nullification than anything an opposition, holding to the same proposition, and using exactly the same cunning "tactics", can effect, eh?
No question "personalization" and "polarization" are "tactics" they have used, and over the short run "effectively", especially in regard to those who fall for it.
But they are now being destroyed by these "tactics" as well, no?
Know the enemy and how he operates, yes. Take the gloves off, yes. Become the enemy, and what is one fighting for—or against?
As a matter of fact, one of their "tactics" is to assure their dupes that those whom they are fighting against are exactly like them, only not as competent in their understanding of their definition of "tactics" in the pursuit of power, including utter, unquestioning adherence to "the end justifies the means".
Among other things, this requires the total destruction of any idea of objective reality, or memory, or useful abstraction. One moment black is white, and it has always been so, and the next the opposite is "equally true", and has always been true as well.
I don't have the time for more serious discussion at the moment, but their very tactics in defining and trying to seize power underlie their absolute incompetence, including the necessity for wholesale murder and suppression, wherever they have succeeded in grasping unchallenged control of a nation's affairs.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
"You are correct. You must read Alinsky to understand your enemies. I am always shocked by so many who think of politics as a game, it is no game. My family is from China and we know that politics is deadly. If your side loses you don't wait for another election. At best, you become an exile, and at worst, you die. Never forget that if they had their way, they would eliminate us all...."
Bump.
Best regards. S&W R.I.P.
"It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. "
Only if you lack dignity.
Why are conservatives considering the merits of Marxist "ends justifies the means" tactics? How about a nice thread on "share the wealth?"
Thanks for the heads-up, B.
I am very selective in what I 'bookmark.' I've bookmarked this. :)
bttt
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 112 | Top | Last ]
Stubled across your post. Kewl!
A Condit bump.
In the 60s Alinsky got hired to organize against and disrupt the Kansas City, Missouri powerbase. I was there and he was a complete and total flop.
Good book, at least for understanding the ongoing tactics of the "Progressive" left. I wouldn't agree with all of Alinsky's methods, but maybe if conservatives made the effort to organize at the community level, especially in cities, we could break the grip of the Democrats in the "blue" urban areas of the country. At the very least, "Rules for Radicals" suggests some interesting tactics for grassroots conservative action.
bttt
119 Posted on 10/29/2001 08:50:36 PST by Stand Watch Listen
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |
