Shoving Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals Right Back in the Left’s Ugly Face

The Left is getting massively out-Alinskyed, and the hilarious thing is that this band of withered hippies, unemployable millennial safe-space cases, and unlovable + unshaven libfeminists don’t even know it. Oh, their masters sure know it. Soros is bitterly having to ramp up his infusions of blood money to keep his community-organized “grassroots” movements afloat. The less dumb ones among the lying dinosaur media are panicking as their influence fades, and Chuck Schumer is enduring such a non-stop parade of serial humiliations that if the Senate were a penitentiary, he’d be McConnell’s prison Mitch.

The Leftist mafia godmaleidentifyingparents pulling the strings of the Marxist Muppets know the score – they are losing. And it’s awesome. Because, finally, the Right has taken Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and shoved it up where #TheResistance don’t shine.

Thank you, Andrew Breitbart. You yelled, “Follow me!” and led a movement that had previously been dominated by doofy wonks and bow-tied geeks over the top in a glorious bayonet charge against the paper tiger liberal elite. The Left hadn’t taken a good, solid gut punch since Ronald Reagan turned the Oval Office keys over to the wimpcons who found fighting Democrats uncouth because conflict made for awkward luncheons down at the club. Bizarrely, the guy who picked up the standard and carried it forward when our beloved commander was felled by fate was a New York billionaire with no identifiable ideological foundation who instinctively understood the one thing that could make up for his other failings: He knows how to fight liberals and win. For Donald Trump and the revitalized conservative movement, Alinsky's book isn’t some dusty old commie tome - it’s a lifestyle.

Alinsky’s Rules are relatively simple, and they make sense when you are fighting a conventional opponent with an interest in maintaining the status quo. The Rules are terrific for dealing with an old-school conservative guy who drives a Buick, enjoys gardening, and doesn’t want any trouble. They aren’t so effective against conservative brawlers who like to punch, and who aren’t too fussy about whether it’s with tweets or with fists.

The Rules are not some magic incantation; they are simply some tactical principles that work in certain kinds of fights against certain kinds of opponents – particularly ones willing to unilaterally disarm in the face of an unprincipled enemy. But once the secret is out, it’s relatively easy to turn them around on an enemy that is so stupid it thinks it’s going to gain widespread acceptance among normal Americans by dressing up as genitalia. That’s why the thirteen classic Alinsky Rules are playing out right now in a way the Left did not expect.

Rule 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Actually, we now have a lot of power. No, we don’t have direct power over liberal bastions like Hollywood, the media and academia, but by threatening to use governmental levers of power to impact their tax breaks, copyright laws, and subsidies, we can pound them into submission. And Trump is clearly willing to use all his powers to beat the living liberalism out of our enemy.

Wait, this is where the Fredocons loosen their bow ties and stutter, “Why…we can’t…Professor Wellington Wimpenheimer IV would not approve…it’s so mean…oh, well I never!”

Wake up. Man up. If you ever want to win (and maybe someday even kiss a girl) you need to get real. They hate us, and we either win or we spend the rest of our miserable lives as Boxer the Horse, slaving away to fund the welfare state under the lash of the Left until it decides it’s time to pack us off to the glue factory.

Rule 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people” and Rule 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Stupid GOP wonkcons want to fight to where the liberals are strong, like on entitlements. Trump is smart enough to fight where liberals are weak, like on the economy. And he’s going to throw down some serious jujitsu by doing a liberal thing – infrastructure spending – in a conservative way. He's a developer – he knows how to build stuff, and he will freak the Left out by delivering concrete results (not the least of them, a wall) where liberals (for whom “infrastructure” means giving our money to their deadbeat constituents) never actually build stuff anymore. As a conservative, I’m not thrilled about “infrastructure” spending. But as a conservative insurgent who wants to see the Left on its collective collectivist back, twitching like a dying roach, I’m thrilled.

Rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” This is not so much about pointing out the lies and hypocrisy that constitute Leftist orthodoxy – the vicious racism they deny is racism because it’s anti-white, the racism against non-whites who refuse to serve a liberal master, the sexism against women who think babies should be actually be born, and so on. It’s about not letting them tie us into knots by using our morals and values as bear traps to immobilize and neutralize us. Fortunately, most of us have discovered how losing our superficial “political values” helps us regain our freedom. We have embraced the power of not #caring. And liberals have no idea what to do when they shout “Trump is a meanie,” and we shrug, smile, and bust out with an impromptu interpretive dance to celebrate Neil Gorsuch.

Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Actually, the AR15 a more potent weapon, but ridicule will do as long as the Left doesn't try to make good on its countless threats of violence and tyranny. Regardless, we finally we have a conservative corps that is willing to mock the members of that motley collection of pompous, inept, lying jerks we call the Democrat Party and its media catamite corps. When they turn around and try to mock us back, well, we aren’t watching their late night hack comics anymore, and frankly they can make all the jokes they want. The punchline is still going to be “And then the Republicans repealed Obamacare.”

Rule 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” I’m having fun watching the liberals lose. How about you?

Rule 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” I don’t know – I doubt I am ever going to be tired of so much #winning.

Rule 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Remember the Trump outrage du jour a couple days ago when we were supposed to be on the verge of war with Australia? Well, Down Under’s kangaroos and giant scary spiders still wander freely, and we’ve long since moved on. President Trump has been busy owning the news cycle with appointments, executive orders, and the occasional squirrel-sighting tweet that sends the media chasing off on a rodent-seeking tangent. Oh no, Kellyanne Conway said to buy Ivanka’s stuff – if I ever cared (and I never did), I’ve already moved on to giggling about the progressive freak out over ICE being allowed to do its job again.

Rule 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” No, Alinsky was wrong. The thing itself is much, much worse – as Democrats will find out when President Trump signs the law mandating national concealed carry reciprocity.

Rule 10: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” Democrats are trying to do the massive resistance thing again, and it’s going about as well as when they tried the massive resistance thing against integration. It may arouse libs in blue cities and on soon-to-be-defunded college campuses, but normals are getting tired of the nonstop Leftist nonsense. See Rule 7. Conversely, Trump’s nonstop series of orders, appointments, and policies seems to be helping him – mostly because they are popular.

Rule 11: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Unhinged Leftist obstruction, including violence, is driving people right. However, leftist harping on Trump’s rough edges seems to be backfiring – instead of “Oh my, what a brute!” people seem to be saying “Good. He fights.”

Rule 12: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Trump has a program and it’s popular. What’s the Democrats’ program? “Give us more of your money so we can buy votes from welfare cheats, and then we’ll lecture you on your privilege?”

The Democrats have no meaningful policies because their entire focus is on them regaining and keeping power – that’s their desired end state, not a country made great again, and that’s why they get no traction anywhere on the map outside of the dysfunctional blue spots. Watch for then to eventually seriously propose secession by the liberal states – after the last few months, I’ve been tempted to move my novel People’s Republic, about California ignoring the admonition to never go full Venezuela, over to the nonfiction section.

Rule 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Well, they try to. They try to make Trump a demonic chimera composed of bits and pieces of Hitler, Mussolini, and more Hitler, and he just doesn’t care. We don’t care, because we know what they are really saying is that we normals are the monsters that it’s not Trump governing that is illegitimate but that it is we normals having a voice in governing ourselves that is illegitimate.

And now we are woke, as the ridiculous Left would put it, to the Left’s tired Alinsky antics. We see it’s all a lie. It’s all a scam. And we aren’t playing the game by their rules anymore.

Do you have a reliable link for that? I don’t recall that, except that the Taliban was more likely than not just stalling or being deceptive.

I know you and I won’t agree on this. I appreciate your being largely civil in this discussion.

I don’t want to hijack Kaslin’s thread more than I already have.

and it wouldn’t have happened if not for Trump. None of the other candidates would’ve led this revolution.

Troof. Never forget that this is us against the uniparty, and the uniparty includes all the Bushes, McCain, Romney, Ryan, and Rubio. The uniparty wanted Jeb against Hillary, cause no matter who won, the policies would have been the same on borders, trade and immigration. Rubio was their fall back, and they only went to Cruz when they had no alternative. None of them would have flipped a single blue state.

BTW, Schlicter was pretty late to the Trump party, but got on board when it was him or Hillary.

Thanks for those links, thoughtomator. I don’t see them the same way you do, I guess.

To me, this is the offer by the Taliban after several weeks of intensive bombing by the US to either try him in an islamic court or turn him over to some third country (who wouldn’t care what we think) in order to stop the bombing campaign, nothing more, IMO. I don’t see where either of those options would be palatable or acceptable to any American. I certainly wouldn’t have bit on it.

I just don’t see anything in those efforts that could be construed as acceptable.

When you consider that 16 years later, we still lack public domain proof that Osama bin Laden was the organizer of the attacks, and that the Bush admin deliberately covered up Saudi intelligence involvement (the infamous “28 pages”), it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Iraq was the second war, not the first, that GWB lied in order to get the US involved in.

I feel pretty confident that Bin Laden was behind 9/11. If there is solid evidence that the country that expelled him was behind 9/11, I haven't heard it.

This is Bin Laden in his own words from a video he distributed:

"...It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.

It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.

But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - all praise is due to Allah..."

In my opinion, he had more reasons to deny it than to claim credit for it, yet he chose to claim credit. Those are his words in his video he released to Al Jazeera. And he isn't some kind of flunky they picke out of a hat to be a fall guy. He was involved with multiple acts of violence against America.

For me, thinking Bin Laden didn't do it doesn't move a needle at all.

That’s not a claim of credit - it’s simply praise for the people who pulled it off - and he did in fact deny involvement.

Seriously, try to prove OBL was involved - don’t rely on your biases, and don’t rely on single-sourced points from interested parties. You’ll find it amazingly difficult to do.

I don't see it that way. When I read this statement:

"...And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice. It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him..."

Those highlighted and underlined areas of his own words indicates foreknowledge, discussion, and planning to me, of which he was a part.

And those are his words, not a transcript from a conversation by someone typing shorthand, but from a video where he spoke those words, heard and seen by millions of arabic speaking viewers, many of whom had no reason to mis-translate what he said.

Sure, he may have denied it in the days following 9/11, but why give your enemies any information, especially if you may have other things planned?

I think you can say there were people in the Saudi government somewhere who were in cahoots with him if you can provide proof, but I don’t think you can reasonably say he didn’t have a major role (if not THE major role) when he explicitly talks about planning it.

Here’s OBL in an interview six days after 9/11:

“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.”

There is zero speculation involved here - it’s a flat-out denial, and it’s in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

You don’t have to read into a single thing here. You don’t have to guess what he means.

This quote is six days afterwards, not three years of war and a manhunt specifically aimed at him afterwards.

It is here I will point out that the quote you raised is from 2004. But we didn’t invade Afghanistan in 2004, we invaded at the start of 2002.

So what evidence is there, that was available at the time the decision was made to invade Afghanistan, that OBL directed 9/11?

Keep looking - if it exists, you definitely haven’t found it yet and aren’t close.

"...As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie..."

That pretty much says it all for me.

Look, I am okay not agreeing with you on this. I'm not going to convince you, so I don't want to waste your time and mine as well.

I respect your points of view, as I have read your posts over the years and I generally follow you. I will disagree with you on this. Thanks for keeping it civil.

Freegards, thoughtomator.

I agree, mock them, name them. Boy they hate being called Leftist fascists, totalitarians.

Absolutely! It's why you won't hear them referring to themselves as "Liberals"...they are PROGRESSIVES! now. Hey, everyone wants there to be progress, right? We have to take back that word applied only to Liberals and show how Conservatives are the truly progressive people for our country.

The word "progressive" can mean: continuing · continuous · increasing · growing · developing · ongoing · accelerating · escalating · gradual · step-by-step · cumulative

Used to denote a person: innovator · reformer · reformist · liberal · libertarian (Oxford Dictionary)

It's funny, the Oxford Dictionary where I got these from expands on the term:

synonyms: modern · liberal · advanced · forward-thinking · enlightened · enterprising · innovative · pioneering · dynamic · bold · avant-garde · reforming · reformist · radical · go-ahead

antonyms: conservative · reactionary

We need to show how Conservatism is NOT the opposite of Progressive but an outlook that has the truly more advanced, enlightened, bold and reforming principles which provides the best way to make America great again. We know that is true because it works - it has always worked, it's right and it honors God.

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.