* RULE 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. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

* RULE 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. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

* 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.)

* RULE 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. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

* RULE 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. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

* RULE 10: “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. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

* RULE 11: “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. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

* 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.)

Do people really agree with this?

Title is missing and cant edit.

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

With Liberals you don't get the luxury of getting to CHOOSE!

They funny that way.

how is the title missing? is that another issue since the server move?

oh and um, those damn libbytards grr what are they like huh!

Lets start with Rule #1

RULE 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. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

In other words, promise freeloads, free stuff and get votes.

👆

Lets review #2

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

IOW: Stay Stupid for the good of the party, no matter how stupid we have become.

Are you Dolos?

No. He is Nacho flavored.

The old Alinsky method. The left follow it completely.

Is this another political bashing thread? The missing title and lack of context are confusing. Anyway, I did a quick search on this. This is from Saul's Wiki:

In 1969, while a political science major at Wellesley College, Hillary Rodham Clinton chose to write her senior thesis on Alinsky's work, with Alinsky himself contributing his own time to help her.[22] During her time as first lady, the thesis was not made publicly available by the school. Although Clinton defended Alinksy's intentions in her thesis, she was critical of his methods and dogmatism.[23]

According to biographer Sanford Horwitt, U.S. President Barack Obama was influenced by Alinsky and followed in his footsteps as a Chicago-based community organizer. Horwitt asserted that Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign was influenced by Alinsky's teachings.[24] Alinksy's influence on Obama has been heavily emphasized by some of his detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Thomas Sugrue of Salon.com writes, "as with all conspiracy theories, the Alinsky-Obama link rests on a kernel of truth".[21] For three years in the mid 80s, Obama worked for the Developing Communities Project, which was influenced by Alinsky's work, and he wrote an essay that was collected in a book memorializing Alinsky.[21][25] Newt Gingrich repeatedly stated his opinion that Alinsky was a major influence on Obama during his 2012 presidential campaign, equating Alinksy with "European Socialism", although Alinksy was U.S.-born and was not a Socialist.[26] Gingrich's campaign itself used tactics described by Alinksy's writing.

Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, "his [Alinsky's] tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders

So is this an attack on one side? It sounds like people on both sides use it. To me, it seems more an indictment of political scheming in general than it does of scheming by a particular party.

Interesting stuff, no doubt. I hadn't heard of this guy specifically, but clearly his works have been influential.

Originally posted by Digi
Is this another political bashing thread? The missing title and lack of context are confusing. Anyway, I did a quick search on this. This is from Saul's Wiki:

In 1969, while a political science major at Wellesley College, Hillary Rodham Clinton chose to write her senior thesis on Alinsky's work, with Alinsky himself contributing his own time to help her.[22] During her time as first lady, the thesis was not made publicly available by the school. Although Clinton defended Alinksy's intentions in her thesis, she was critical of his methods and dogmatism.[23]

According to biographer Sanford Horwitt, U.S. President Barack Obama was influenced by Alinsky and followed in his footsteps as a Chicago-based community organizer. Horwitt asserted that Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign was influenced by Alinsky's teachings.[24] Alinksy's influence on Obama has been heavily emphasized by some of his detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Thomas Sugrue of Salon.com writes, "as with all conspiracy theories, the Alinsky-Obama link rests on a kernel of truth".[21] For three years in the mid 80s, Obama worked for the Developing Communities Project, which was influenced by Alinsky's work, and he wrote an essay that was collected in a book memorializing Alinsky.[21][25] Newt Gingrich repeatedly stated his opinion that Alinsky was a major influence on Obama during his 2012 presidential campaign, equating Alinksy with "European Socialism", although Alinksy was U.S.-born and was not a Socialist.[26] Gingrich's campaign itself used tactics described by Alinksy's writing.

Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, "his [Alinsky's] tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders

So is this an attack on one side? It sounds like people on both sides use it. To me, it seems more an indictment of political scheming in general than it does of scheming by a particular party.

Interesting stuff, no doubt. I hadn't heard of this guy specifically, but clearly his works have been influential.

Tried to edit title but was unable to. Oh well.

Originally posted by long pig
Whatever, satanist. I don't believe your lies!

How do I know you, star and TI aren't satanists sent to spread discord and strife between man?

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
How do I know you, star and TI aren't satanists sent to spread discord and strife between man?

Ironic isn't that? Coming the online transvestites obsessed with little girls.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Ironic isn't that? Coming the online transvestites obsessed with little girls.

See, this is a man dedicated to his work.

Perhaps Satan is behind all trolls on the internet.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
See, this is a man dedicated to his work.

Perhaps Satan is behind all trolls on the internet.

Guess that means you're a Satanist too then.

I know I am.

Originally posted by Star428
Guess that means you're a Satanist too then.

Maybe we're all Satanists.

Originally posted by Star428
Guess that means you're a Satanist too then.

If you say "too" in that kind of answer it sounds as if you were admitting yourself as a troll.

As per the discussion of the topic, I think it's a bit brief, but I can see wider sentences and maxims from classic strategists that would corroborate this kind of argumentation.