Search Box

Saturday, November 28, 2015

Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is sociopathy in political form

Community organizer Saul Alinsky published Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals in 1971. We've all heard his name, and we've all heard that Barack Obama is an Alinsky-ite, so it's instructive to take a look at exactly what tactics Alinsky recommended.

According to Wikipedia, the rules are as follows (my comments in italics) :

1.“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (This reinforces what Alinsky said -- in 1971 -- about how real radicals must cut their hair, wear suits and ties, and infiltrate from within. Pretending to be what you are not or have what you don't is typical sociopathic behavior.)

2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. 

3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (Sociopaths are master manipulators, adept at ferreting out and preying on others' insecurities.)

4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (Sociopaths frequently insist that others play by the rules while they themselves flout them.) 

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. (Sociopaths are by nature bullies, which is what this is essentially recommending; this was obviously what Obama was trying to do when he said recently that Republicans were "afraid of widows and orphans.")

6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (More manipulation, from the drug dealer playbook: get them addicted, so they want more.)

7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Sociopaths themselves are easily bored, so they assume others are as well.) 

8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Sociopaths show no mercy.) 

9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Sociopaths love to threaten and scare.) 

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. (This sounds like a repeat of #8: show no mercy.) 

11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Provoke a reaction on purpose, then play the victim -- classic sociopathic behavior.) 

12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Sociopaths are glib, and always seem to have an answer to everything.)

13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (Sociopaths love to create dissension between others.) 

Sociopaths seem to come by these types of techniques naturally. It's pretty much instinctive with them, which is why we see these patterns repeated over and over again in their behavior.   

Believe it or not, Alinsky actually dedicated his book to the Devil: "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."

Little wonder Barack Obama would take to Alinskyism so readily.


Anonymous said...

#8 is really important.

Did you hear about the the NYC "firefighter" who got injured getting off a truck? I can't look it up now, but she (yes, read on) is a fat black woman who got in as a result of a crazy ruling by a monster judge. She's now on 3/4 pay disability.

It's complicated but back in the 80s women tried to invade the NYC Fire Department, and they were stopped dead by sane legal rulings. They kept coming back until the climate was more sympathetic and got their ruling a couple of years ago. So now the NYFD has 50 or so unqualified women, among them, the above.

BTW, between legal rulings the obese black woman had a desk job at $81K per year. Your taxpayer dollars at work.


John Craig said...

Ladybug --
Yes, I did read about her, originally in the NY Post, then again on Steve Sailer this morning. It really is sickening. All sorts of people shoehorned into jobs for which they are unqualified, thanks to AA. I guess the NYFD was willing to grant more than the usual amount of leeway to a twofer.

And yes, this is a good example of #8, keeping the pressure on. The Left never lets up, which is why we have political correctness today.

Anonymous said...

The most important thing is, never ever give up. The right, even the new alt-right, hasn't proven durable - yet. I have my hopes. This is a generational thing, a hundred years war.

But for now, the left has proven that no matter what happens, when they lose the battle, they come back to fight another day.

Note that the original lawsuit was in 1982. That's the only factual thing in this PuffHo article. The rest of it is lies.


John Craig said...

Ladybug --
Pretty big contrast between that PuffHo (ha, hadn't heard that before) article and Sailer's post this morning, in which he pointed out that the death toll on 9/11 was 343 men, 0 women, and that male firefighters refer to females in the department as "firewatchers."

I don't know enough to recognize all of the lies in that Berkman article, but it is obviously propaganda.

Anonymous said...

I almost hesitated to link to that article. These things to me are like....don't know how to explain it....just a massive load of horseshit. But I googled '1982' and 'NYFD' because it was in 1982 that the original lawsuit, which enabled some women to slide into the department. Later that decision was reasonably reversed. But as we see, the left never gives up.

Alinskyism adds up to me as: naming, blaming and shaming. It's stereotypically female behavior. Not that all women behave that way, and men don't. You know what I mean.

There is even a leftist org. called The Reprimand Project. They should all FOAD. I really hope I don't have to tell you what FOAD means.

I'm beginning to think more & more about President Trump. It's a weird, exhilarating thought.

John Craig said...

Ladybug --
I see Alinskyism as more sociopathic than female, though I do know what you mean. When it comes to political arguments, females are more likely to turn them personal. I do like your rhyme.

Just looked up FOAD, so you don't have to tell me.

I like the idea of a President Trump too, but he seems to have a weirdly self-destructive streak, at least when it comes to his campaign. He's just too much of a loose cannon. This bit about the thousands of Muslims cheering in NJ after 9/11 is just wrong. Five israeli moving company employees, two of whom were later determined to work for Mossad, were seen cheering, but that was it in NY. Thousands of Muslims cheered elsewhere in the world, mostly in Arab countries, but those are not located in NJ. And that retweet with those grossly inaccurate figures about the percent of white deaths black murderers were responsible for; and that inane comment about how he has a sixth sense for when and where the next terrorist attack will be. Why can't he just stick to the facts? All this embellishment may end up being his downfall, I'm afraid.

Again, don't get me wrong; he has the right instincts, and I will vote for him. But all this factually inaccurate stuff makes me wonder a little, and it will lose votes for him.

Anonymous said...

I didn't make up the rhyme.

I didn't mean that being female or feminine characteristics were in and of themselves sociopathic. I meant that in this case, these sociopathic traits are feminine. Masculine sociopathic traits would be physical aggression, etc.

(Naming, shaming & blaming can be useful tools of social control, when engaged in moderately. I mean, ya don't want people to be constantly slapping, kicking and punching each other. Sometimes you need to be teased & shamed.)

I agree with everything you say about Trump. Ultimately I think that he will get what he wants, inside. Now, we all know Hillary wants to be President. But does Trump? I dunno. We shall see.

John Craig said...

Ladybug --
Okay, gotcha. Yes, male sociopaths are more likely to be violent, but I've known plenty who use those other techniques as well.

Actually, now that I think of it, I do a fair amount of naming, blaming, and shaming on this blog. Not sure what that makes me. I see myself as the little boy saying the emperor has no clothes, I'm sure some seem me as a nasty, vengeful Fury.

Others have doubted Trump's desire to be President as well; I think he does want to be, and if he had mixed feelings when he started out, all of this campaigning and leading in the polls has whetted his appetite. I think campaigning, and having crowds cheer you, has to be addictive.

Anonymous said...

"Okay, gotcha. Yes, male sociopaths are more likely to be violent, but I've known plenty who use those other techniques as well."

Dude! I said that in the first place. I am using 'masculine' and 'feminine' as archetypes, not as literal descriptions.

If Trump really really wants to be President then he's got to listen to people who tell him to get his facts straight. Or at least, straighter. I dunno. Does he listen or if anyone doesn't yes man him is it, "ya fired!"? I just don't know.


John Craig said...

Ladybug --
Dude?!! I think I'm a little old to be called that.

Yes, Trump has to stop with the false statements. Though being a liar doesn't seem to necessarily be a disqualified. Both Obama and Hillary are near-pathological liars, and it doesn't seem to have hurt either of them all that much.

Anonymous said...

LOL, no one is ever too old to be called 'dude' on the internet. I mean, I use "LOL" all the time, and that's worthy of a tween.

I think there's a difference between being a near-pathological liar, and just getting stuff wrong. As things become more competitive, Trump will have to up his game. This is just sloppy.

Also, the crowds enjoy his riffing speech style, but at some point he will have to give a serious speech about world affairs. And it will have to be more than, "Yuge!" "I love this!" "I love you!"


John Craig said...

Ladybug --

True, there's a big qualitative difference between getting stuff wrong and being purposely dishonest, though with Trump that line blurs a bit. He seems to have a little bit of Ben Carson's dislike of homework in that regard.

The Dude

Anonymous said...

Well, I agree, I would rather have a candidate that doesn't bloop up so much. I do think his comment about the "thousands & thousands" of Muslims in NJ was just a boner. (In the old fashioned sense of the word.) Whatever, take a look at this and you'll stick with Trump:

I don't take everything these guys say as gospel truth, but I totally agree with this. The GOP establishment (I think that's what they mean by GOP-e) devised a Jeb/not-Jeb split. That was the reason for coming up with all these cockamamie candidates, none of whom had a chance in hell of going anywhere. It makes my blood boil. I mean, Carly Fiorina? Lindsay Graham? Who in hell thought she (hahah) would win anything? They are just paid stooges whose purpose was to nominate Jeb. Maybe Fiorina thought she would get the VP spot as reward....

Well, not as long as Trump is in the race. So let's move on....

Lady Bug

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
Interesting, and plausible theory. The fact that the Republican establishment realized that Jeb would have to win with a plurality presupposes that they realized he didn't have much personal appeal with the Republican base. At the same time, I don't think the Part officials quite had the power to draw in all of those other long shot candidates. After eight years of Obama, it seemed an auspicious time for a Republican Presidential candidate, so all of those perennial candidates (Santorum, Christie, Perry, Huckabee) saw this as their time, and a lot of politicians with Presidential aspirations (far more than people realize) who'd gotten any sort of good press recently (Jindal, Kasich, etc) decided it was their time, too.

Agreed about Graham, how a Republican man who's obviously homosexual would think that he could win is hard to fathom; maybe he's one of the candidates encouraged by the party officials; who knows, maybe they even blackmailed him into running. (Though as I read somewhere recently, if Graham has been in the closet, the door's been wide open for the past two decades.)

But right now it looks as if we Trump supporters will just have to cross our fingers and just be ready to wince every time he lets off another blooper.

Anonymous said...

"But right now it looks as if we Trump supporters will just have to cross our fingers and just be ready to wince every time he lets off another blooper."


I read on another blog a comment to the effect that if Trump doesn't get the nom, there will be an insurrection. Yeah, people talk, and it's always "this time it's different," but I really do think that this time it's different. I've never seen people so angry. What people? Ordinary white people. We're sick of it. Sick of being abused, used, insulted, replaced, and expected to be grateful for it.

I have a nightmare though. Let's say that Trump actually does get elected. Things are in such a volatile state in the world that we really do need boots on the ground somewhere and all these nice young guys who are now feeling patriotic and want to make American great again sign up and they get slaughtered.

I would prefer the US to need boots on the ground with HRC as president. Let her send a battalion of women and LGBTs to fight our endless wars.

Lady Bug

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
I don't see a real insurrection happening. Mostly it'll just be people like you and me grumbling on the internet. I do think whites are finally waking up, though, and the BLM movement is doing wonders in that regard.

I don't think Trump wants to get us involved in another extended ground war. The only ones who really want to do that are Clinton, because she has to prove she's as tough as a man, and Fiorina and Cruz and possibly Christie, the first two because they want to vanquish Israel's enemies, the latter because he's by nature belligerent and acts as if he took 9/11 very personally, because it happened right across the Hudson. I could see Carson blundering into a war, just because he doesn't understand the Middle East. And Jeb would want to uphold the tradition of his family.

Hillary would make a lot of noise about LGBT's and women in combat roles, but then, when push came to shove, would send off the usual contingent of young heterosexual -- and mostly white, with a few Hispanics -- males who fill the combat positions.

But yeah, I have that same nightmare, not least because my son is a soldier.

Anonymous said...

"I don't see a real insurrection happening."
I don't either. So where does grumbling get us?

"I don't think Trump wants to get us involved in another extended ground war."
I know and that's one of the reasons I support him, but unfortunately, there are times when you have to. I can't foresee what those circumstances would be, only that it's quite possible for the situation in Syria to degenerate to the point where the US would have to invade.

"Hillary would make a lot of noise about LGBT's and women in combat roles, but then, when push came to shove, would send off the usual contingent of young heterosexual -- and mostly white, with a few Hispanics -- males who fill the combat positions."

I was joking partly. My point is that she would only be able to send the guys who are already in the military. No one is going to sign up out of patriotic fervor for her. I do think that Trump would. My nightmare is that we must invade, and a lot of nice young dummies get killed.

Let those deaths happen on Hillary's watch, and let it happen to the guys who are already in the military.


John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
Grumbling, like virtue, is its own reward.

I actually think that Putin ad Hollande have the situation in Syria pretty well in hand, but that still leaves ISIS in Iraq. And ISIS does have to be stopped. I just wish we could do it from the air, our usual Marquis of Queensberry rules be damned. ISIS certainly doesn't draw the one at civilian deaths.

I knew you weren't serious about Hillary sending a bunch of LGBT's and women over there; not sure why I felt obliged to point that stuff out.

My son isn't dumb, and he's already in the military. But, I know what you're saying. (No offense taken.)

Anonymous said...

When I used the phrase 'young dummies' I mean: I was one, once. EVERY young person is a dummy. By definition. And if they aren't sort of a dummy there is something wrong with them.

I agree w/you about the current situation in Syria - but with wars, you never know. They are utterly unpredictable.

What does your son do?

I disagree about grumbling. "Never explain, never complain" is my motto. Grumbling is what little nobodies do. Like me. I WANT ACTION DAMMIT!!!!


John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
Aha, I see. Yes, the only people who aren't at least just a little naive when young are sociopaths.

Yes, agreed about wars.

I shouldn't really be giving out details about my son here, but I will say he was in the infantry, spent a year in Afghanistan at a remote combat outpost, and is still on call. If you wan more info send me an email address via a comment, I promise not to post it.

Hmm. My motto is "Always explain, always complain." Which sorta explains my blog.

Anonymous said...

Understood about not wanting to give out details.

About unpredictability - look at the migrant "crisis." Could anyone have predicted THAT? Oh right, Camp of the Saints. But really, did people ever take seriously it would actually happen? And that the leader of the most important country in W. Europe would say, "come on in"? My mind is still reeling over the migrant crisis. I cannot fucking believe it.

And the thing is, we get used to this so quickly. The next disaster awaits, and we don't know what that is. That's what I mean.

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
I"m still reeling from Angela Merkel's invitation to the Syrians myself. I had no idea she was so mushy-headed, the impression he gave while dealing with the Greek debt crisis (and what small potatoes that turned out to be by comparison!) was that she was a tough, hardheaded leader. But geez, the Syrians came knocking and she just spread her legs. The problem is, the result was that all of Europe got eff-ed.

We may not know what the next disaster will be, but we can be pretty sure it will emanate from somewhere in the Middle East or Africa.

Anonymous said...

Was Saul Alinsky a sociopath? Why would anyone want to dedicate a book to the devil, an entity not to be admired.


John Craig said...

Birdie --
Honestly, I don't know whether he was or not. I know little of his private life, or background. My guess is, he was not, and the dedication to the devil was just a show of bravado. He may have just recognized that the most effective techniques for political organizing involved acting without morals. The ends justifies the means, etc.