http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm
They all practice from the same handbook as part of the scientific methodology...
In any event, Alinsky's rules include:
"Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat."
"Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
"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 threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself."
"In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans. Think of how Clinton "enemies" like Paula Jones or Linda Tripp were treated.)
"One of the criteria for picking the target is the target's vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract." (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying "nigger" on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.)
"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength." For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.
They all practice from the same handbook as part of the scientific methodology...
Some of the best, most penetrating, and most straight-forward and useful analyses of communist mentality was published by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and also by the American Bar Association Special Committee on Communist Tactics. One recurring theme is truth, or rather, absence of it: "Whoever is touched with Communism loses his sense of truth as we know it." This, of course, is true. Another point of note is that people are suceptible to marxist propaganda because they don't know what it is. They hear a scientist talking a marxist line and they fail to recognize it for what it is because they simply don't know. And in this way we have allowed ourselves to become saturated with marxist dialectical materialism in science, the arts, literature, education, etc. People repeat opinions and ideas they have had drilled into them, ideas which are in fact marxist in origin, yet they remain oblivious to it (or act like they are oblivious.) Let's take an example.
A standard line you hear from evolutionists on FR is that "truth" doesn't belong in science. Science's conceptions of "truth" are always changing and in flux, so there is really no such thing as truth in science because truth is "fixed" and science isn't. Science does not sully its hands with such things. Everything evolves, nothing is static. Theories which contain fixed truths cannot be considered science, because such theories contain elements that are not subject to revision. So they must be classified as metaphysics or religion. This, of course, is standard Marxist doctrine. That will come as a surprise perhaps, to the dozens of dupes that have repeated it hundreds of times on FR.
Coyoteman has on his homepage the following blurb by a useful idiot:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.To this, Coyoteman adds:
"If you want TRVTH, though, just ask the creationists here. They'll be happy to fill you full of it.If you want TRVTH, though, just ask the creationists here. They'll be happy to fill you full of it. But the problem is, each will give you a different version of the TRVTH and defend it to your death. That's why the Religion Forum has such tight moderation rules. Thanks, science does just fine by seeking to be accurate. That's plenty good enough, don't you think?"But this philosophy is all old news..."You keep pushing the TRVTH, and you can fight it out with the world's 4,300 other religions each of which also claims to have the TRVTH. (And this doesn't even count the different branches within each denomination!)"
"No one's ever said there's no such thing as Truth, just that science isn't the place to look to find it."
Dialaectics tells us that nothing in the world is eternal, everything in the world is transient and mutable; nature changes, society changes, habits and customs change--that is why dialectics regards everything critically; that is why it denies the existence of a once-and-for-all established truth. Consequently, it also repudiates abstract dogmatic propositions... Metaphysics, however, tells us something altogether different. From its standpoint the world is something eternal and immutable, it has been once and for all determined by someone or something--that is why the metaphysicians always have "eternal justice" or "immutable truth" on their lips.Ponder this philosophy. Let's say you mowed your lawn on June 1st, 2008. Dialectical materialism says this cannot be a fixed truth. It may not be true in, say, 5 years. It will have to be revised. But anyway, you've heard all this before from evolutionists. IIRC they testified in courts that this is the nature of science.--Joseph Stalin, Anarchism or Socialism? Collected Works, volume 1.