Rules for Conservatives, ignore the radical left

Known as the 'father of modern American radicalism,' Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. ... Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work."
Notes from an article by Phyllis Schalfly titled "Alinski's Rules: Must Reading In Obama Era," posted at
"Alinsky's second chapter, called Of Means and Ends, craftily poses many difficult moral dilemmas, and his 'tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends' is: 'you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.' He doesn't ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He is much more devious; he teaches his followers that 'Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.'...
"The qualities Alinsky looked for in a good organizer were:

  • ego ("reaching for the highest level for which man can reach — to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God"),
  • curiosity (raising "questions that agitate, that break through the accepted pattern"),
  • irreverence ("nothing is sacred"; the organizer "detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality"),
  • imagination ("the fuel for the force that keeps an organizer organizing"),
  • a sense of humor ("the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule"), and an
  • organized personality with confidence in presenting the right reason for his actions only "as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved.'...
"'The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems,' and 'organizations must be based on many issues.' The organizer 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.'"
 
Let's get the word out about the healhcare bill, and stop bumping the threads that apply the Rules for Radicals

The left wants our eye off the ball, by demeaning Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. They are the target at this time, because they are indeed 2 of the most powerful voices out there.

The two alinsky rules that the left employs the most often is


RULE 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. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

And

RULE 12: 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 cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)




Palin and Beck just happen to resinate with everyday Americans because we actually think much of the same way. We are not on in the public eye, and there are times we may not agree with a few things. But overall, they speak our language and they give us the courage to speak our minds and do what is right, not just sit back and allow the left to destroy our country.


The left believes they no longer need to go after Limbaugh for some weird reason. Do they think they have froze his voice, personalized him, and polarized him? Sure they do

I am not a "fan" of Palin, but I agree with her on most the issues, I understand why she resigned. Imagine what that was doing to her family.

Now lets read the monstrosity that congress has created, which by the way is a anti American monster created from years of the lefties screaming and whining. Take responsibility libs, as well as those on the right that gave in because they allowed themselves to be beaten down and blackmailed, by the tactics of the left

Health Care Bill Index « Alamo City Pundit
Well Pixie, I see it like this.

Whenever conservatives have framed the issues the way they see it, they win elections. They lose elections when they try to defend their position against how the left frames the issue.

Saul Alinksy's methods are effective because it puts the left on the offensive. They are the ones framing the issue and whenever someone disagrees with them, they disagree on the lefts terms. It is a recipe for losing an argument every time.

Why do you think they do this against people like Limbaugh and Beck? Both of these people are exercising their rights under the Constitution. But notice how they react.

Limbaugh is basically preaching to the choir. For decades the conservatives in this country had no voice in the media. They knew this. Along came Limbaugh (I was living in Sacramento when he launched his talk show career so I've been listening to him since before he was syndicated) and suddenly, the conservatives had someone whom they could vent their frustrations and express their beliefs. How do the left portray Limbaugh? As some propagandist who brain washes his audience. You see, they simply cannot allow it to be even thought that the audience that Limbaugh has thinks for itself. That would destroy their 'framework' and put the premise of their entire argument in jeopardy. To defeat them, is easy enough. Show proof that your own premise is valid and ignore their premise.

Beck is pretty much under attack because he asks questions that they do not want asked and shows that the media, which is supposed to be the watchdog of government for the American people has not been asking these questions and it shows. He brings on experts that support his premise and they are forced to name call him rather then challenge him. When they do manage to actually try to attack the meat of the issue, they do so with known agenda driven leftists masquerading as experts. The response of the left to Glenn Beck is classic Alinksy.

I won't get into Palin because she damaged herself to much when she claimed to never be a quitter and then quit the Governors job. No matter how justified, she simply can no longer be relied upon to do what she claims she will do. I'll not defend her, but I can and have discussed the issues that she champions. The left will use Palin as a club in this manner and it is easy to redefine their attempts at deflection by showing that the majority of America supports the conservative side of any issue.

In the end, what needs to be done, here and else where is to define the issue, argue from that position and use facts. Don't give recognition to leftist threads by replying to them. Create your own thread or bump up one of the hundreds of threads that already exist on any given issue.

But that advice won't be heeded. To many people come to these kinds of forums just to call the opposition names rather then actually talk about what is important to them. And that is what they are counting on.
 
Last edited:
Whenever conservatives have framed the issues the way they see it, they win elections. They lose elections when they try to defend their position against how the left frames the issue.

Saul Alinksy's methods are effective because it puts the left on the offensive. They are the ones framing the issue and whenever someone disagrees with them, they disagree on the lefts terms. It is a recipe for losing an argument every time.

Why do you think they do this against people like Limbaugh and Beck? Both of these people are exercising their rights under the Constitution. But notice how they react.

Limbaugh is basically preaching to the choir. For decades the conservatives in this country had no voice in the media. They knew this. Along came Limbaugh (I was living in Sacramento when he launched his talk show career so I've been listening to him since before he was syndicated) and suddenly, the conservatives had someone whom they could vent their frustrations and express their beliefs. How do the left portray Limbaugh? As some propagandist who brain washes his audience. You see, they simply cannot allow it to be even thought that the audience that Limbaugh has thinks for itself. That would destroy their 'framework' and put the premise of their entire argument in jeopardy. To defeat them, is easy enough. Show proof that your own premise is valid and ignore their premise.

Beck is pretty much under attack because he asks questions that they do not want asked and shows that the media, which is supposed to be the watchdog of government for the American people has not been asking these questions and it shows. He brings on experts that support his premise and they are forced to name call him rather then challenge him. When they do manage to actually try to attack the meat of the issue, they do so with known agenda driven leftists masquerading as experts. The response of the left to Glenn Beck is classic Alinksy.

I won't get into Palin because she damaged herself to much when she claimed to never be a quitter and then quit the Governors job. No matter how justified, she simply can no longer be relied upon to do what she claims she will do. I'll not defend her, but I can and have discussed the issues that she champions. The left will use Palin as a club in this manner and it is easy to redefine their attempts at deflection by showing that the majority of America supports the conservative side of any issue.

In the end, what needs to be done, here and else where is to define the issue, argue from that position and use facts. Don't give recognition to leftist threads by replying to them. Create your own thread or bump up one of the hundreds of threads that already exist on any given issue.

But that advice won't be heeded. To many people come to these kinds of forums just to call the opposition names rather then actually talk about what is important to them. And that is what they are counting on.

That's a lot of pot-kettle you just typed there. Apparently in your view Cons' shit never stinks when it comes to political discourse in the public arena.

And as for this part...

How do the left portray Limbaugh? As some propagandist who brain washes his audience. You see, they simply cannot allow it to be even thought that the audience that Limbaugh has thinks for itself.


The fact that Rush's fans routinely call themselves "Dittoheads" doesn't exactly help the perception of them you complain about.


And this part...

To defeat them, is easy enough. Show proof that your own premise is valid and ignore their premise.


An open-minded independent thinker like yourself blatantly advocating ignoring others' arguments? Tsk, tsk....
 
Classic example of what I'm talking about is Erik the Red.

He doesn't even know what dittohead means or how it started. Yet he now wishes to redefine the whole argument to center around a time saving tool on a talk radio show.

It is a classic response.
 
Classic example of what I'm talking about is Erik the Red.

He doesn't even know what dittohead means or how it started. Yet he now wishes to redefine the whole argument to center around a time saving tool on a talk radio show.

It is a classic response.

Well, enlighten me about the term, then.


As for your other post I was responding to, I'd say that's also a pretty classic response. I've been reading that kind of thing constantly on this board and a certain other one from both sides for quite a while now. If you're honestly gonna sit here and try and argue that facts are solely the posession of your side of the political divide and that the only side engaging in unsavory tactics is the other side then you're being hypocritical.
 
Classic example of what I'm talking about is Erik the Red.

He doesn't even know what dittohead means or how it started. Yet he now wishes to redefine the whole argument to center around a time saving tool on a talk radio show.

It is a classic response.

Well, enlighten me about the term, then.


As for your other post I was responding to, I'd say that's also a pretty classic response. I've been reading that kind of thing constantly on this board and a certain other one from both sides for quite a while now. If you're honestly gonna sit here and try and argue that facts are solely the posession of your side of the political divide and that the only side engaging in unsavory tactics is the other side then you're being hypocritical.
I already gave you the answer but I'll simplify it for you. After Limbaugh's show began to take off, those who were desperately looking for a way to get their voice heard would call up the show and spend valuable time doing nothing but thanking Limbaugh for having the courage to do what he was doing. It was getting to the point that they would go on about that for minutes on end. He finally made it part of his program that if you enjoyed his show and agreed with much of what he had to say, then when they called, they just had to say "Ditto" and everyone listening to the program would know what was being said and then the caller could get to the main issue of their call right away. It proved to be a valuable time saving tool and allowed Limbaugh to get more callers packed into his show. It has nothing to do with being blind followers of Rush Limbaugh.

No one has a monopoly on the truth, but that is a classic deflection and a type of rule for radical's as well. What I am discussing is rejecting the premise of the left. All of it. Conservatives lose elections when they have to defend against false charges made by the left. Much like they do with Beck and Limbaugh and Fox News and anything else they disagree with. It simply is time to stop doing that. It is time to properly frame the issue in our terms and discuss them in those terms.

Lynn Cheney is a perfect example of how this works. She went on a tour of the SR-MSM about a year back and the SR Media were salivating on how they were going to destroy the daughter of the Vice President. She made them look like fools, had them back-pedaling and quickly moving on to other subjects when they were called on their premise. She did this by simply telling them that their basis for their position was wrong and then proceeded to show them how it was wrong and why she believed as she did. She was quickly dropped from the list of people who should be interviewed. In essence, she used their own tactics against them.

But as I said. Too many people come here and to other forums of this type for the sole purpose of just calling the other side names. Not to articulate what they believe and why they believe it.
 
Last edited:
Our most potent weapon is freedom of speech. The left wants to silence us

I agree with you on ignoring their attacks, unless it's on issues. On the other hand, I'm very happy that so many conservatives and independents are using many of the Alinsky rules to fight the left. They work at winning, though it would be nice if it weren't that way, but it is.

I really don't like using the same tactics that the communist use just because it is dirty but I do not think we have to take it. I've dropped the pretense of niceness and just started calling them names when appropriate but many people on the left are actually nice people who don't use those same tactics so why should we destroy them?

I really think the trick is to isolate the reasonable ones from the extremist because these people voted for Reagen a long time ago and will listen to a good argument.
 
Our most potent weapon is freedom of speech. The left wants to silence us


Sure we will call you unamerican traitors and such like you did us during the Bush years?

If the left and the useful idiots had not politicized 9-11 and the war the that ensued, the war would have been won and over, but the lefties wanted to make it their new era of hippydom


 
If the left and the useful idiots had not politicized 9-11 and the war the that ensued, the war would have been won and over, but the lefties wanted to make it their new era of hippydom



You have got to be fuckin' kidding!



:lol::lol::lol:

We are dead serious. You guys took something that was painful to all Americans and used it to inflict more pain on Americans by claiming it was an inside job or that Americans deserved it.
 
If the left and the useful idiots had not politicized 9-11 and the war the that ensued, the war would have been won and over, but the lefties wanted to make it their new era of hippydom



You have got to be fuckin' kidding!



:lol::lol::lol:

We are dead serious. You guys took something that was painful to all Americans and used it to inflict more pain on Americans by claiming it was an inside job or that Americans deserved it.


And they are not done yet. We are having the left's terrorist buddies come to NYC and spout some more bullshit! Yep!
 
If the left and the useful idiots had not politicized 9-11 and the war the that ensued, the war would have been won and over, but the lefties wanted to make it their new era of hippydom



You have got to be fuckin' kidding!



:lol::lol::lol:

We are dead serious. You guys took something that was painful to all Americans and used it to inflict more pain on Americans by claiming it was an inside job or that Americans deserved it.

Amen. It was before I got here, but on more than two other boards the wingnuts were all about blaming the government for blowing up the towers and Pentagon. You probably had the same here. Can't melt steel, had to be explosives. No sign of a plane at the Pentagon. It was the same people that thought Cindy Shehan was great.
 
Last edited:
I already gave you the answer but I'll simplify it for you. After Limbaugh's show began to take off, those who were desperately looking for a way to get their voice heard would call up the show and spend valuable time doing nothing but thanking Limbaugh for having the courage to do what he was doing. It was getting to the point that they would go on about that for minutes on end. He finally made it part of his program that if you enjoyed his show and agreed with much of what he had to say, then when they called, they just had to say "Ditto" and everyone listening to the program would know what was being said and then the caller could get to the main issue of their call right away. It proved to be a valuable time saving tool and allowed Limbaugh to get more callers packed into his show. It has nothing to do with being blind followers of Rush Limbaugh.


Fair enough, I guess, except it also shows how groupthink can play a role even amongst people who consider themselves independent thinkers.

No one has a monopoly on the truth, but that is a classic deflection and a type of rule for radical's as well.

Well, for you to acknowledge it's true kinda undercuts the argument you seem to be making if, as it appears, you believe the right's positions to be so unassailable. It's not all I was arguing, either. I was also talking about tactics both sides have used over the years to unfairly tar the other sides' positions and those who make them.

What I am discussing is rejecting the premise of the left. All of it. Conservatives lose elections when they have to defend against false charges made by the left. Much like they do with Beck and Limbaugh and Fox News and anything else they disagree with. It simply is time to stop doing that. It is time to properly frame the issue in our terms and discuss them in those terms.

Once again, pot-kettle. You think this same convo hasn't been going on with libs/Dems when they were in the minority? Both sides have people who make unfair accusations and over-generalizations towards the other side and both sides have people who try to argue on the merits of their positions. Many people on both sides will do a bit of both, especially certain media personalities.

As far as "premises" are concerned, go ahead and reject what you feel is unfair. Like I said, it's not like either side has a monopoly on fairness and nobody likes to be reduced to a caricature. Of course that also means it's a two-way street. If by "premises" you mean any argument made by the other side, then you're just being what you're railing against and, once again, that's hypocritical.

Lynn Cheney is a perfect example of how this works. She went on a tour of the SR-MSM about a year back and the SR Media were salivating on how they were going to destroy the daughter of the Vice President. She made them look like fools, had them back-pedaling and quickly moving on to other subjects when they were called on their premise. She did this by simply telling them that their basis for their position was wrong and then proceeded to show them how it was wrong and why she believed as she did. She was quickly dropped from the list of people who should be interviewed. In essence, she used their own tactics against them.


I think you mean Liz Cheney and she was peddling birther propaganda and was pretty much caught lying when she made the claim her dad and Pres. Bush never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11. IOW, not exactly a "perfect example".

But as I said. Too many people come here and to other forums of this type for the sole purpose of just calling the other side names. Not to articulate what they believe and why they believe it.


True, but making one-sided generalizations isn't much better.
 
If the left and the useful idiots had not politicized 9-11 and the war the that ensued, the war would have been won and over, but the lefties wanted to make it their new era of hippydom



You have got to be fuckin' kidding!



:lol::lol::lol:

We are dead serious. You guys took something that was painful to all Americans and used it to inflict more pain on Americans by claiming it was an inside job or that Americans deserved it.


OMG!!


Who's "you guys"???? A few 9/11 truther nutjobs. Gimme a break! :lol:

And all those times Shrub and the GOP were constantly bringing it up while bashing the Dems wasn't using it politically??


Edit: Not to mention all the times they were desperately "dialling 9-1-1" to try and save their asses before the '06 elections.

:lol::lol::lol:
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top