Can We Use Communist Tactics Against the Globo-Commos? And, is it Right? By Peter West
We have been screaming about the coming bad times and the need for people to either do something to prevent it, and/or prepare for the great train wreck, and the fast train coming of global socialism/communism, which will be planted in post-Trump America in 2020, where it will spread instantly to Australia, and kill us all. What can we do?
Perhaps we can learn from the globo-commos and out-smart them, or we could continue to be pious, and lose everything. That is where Saul Alinsky comes in, as he had a program that all of the elites have followed with great success:
“Obama used his ideas on his path to the US Presidency, Hilary Clinton wrote her thesis on his work, and grass-roots movements, from both the left and now the right, treat his work as the template for action. Yet many people have never heard of the American Saul Alinsky. He is thought be the founder of modern community organising and wrote one of the most influential books on setting up grass-roots movements: the 1971 book Rules For Radicals. The basic philosophy was to give power to the have-nots. In his introduction he wrote:
“WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away”
The book goes on to give lessons on how to take power away from the “haves”. Naturally, it was heavily used by the counter-cultural movement in the 1970s, but has increasingly be used in mainstream political campaigns. Perhaps, the most enduring part of the book is Alinsky’s 13 rules for radicals. Here they are with some of his additional notes:
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.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
5. “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.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings. New issues and crises are always developing, and one's reaction becomes, "Well, my heart bleeds for those people and I'm all for the boycott, but after all there are other important things in life"—and there it goes.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” [use] different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
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. It should be remembered not only that the action is in the reaction but that action is itself the consequence of reaction and of reaction to the reaction, ad infinitum. The pressure produces the reaction, and constant pressure sustains action.
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside [positive]” this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative. We have already seen the conversion of the negative into the positive, in Mahatma Gandhi's development of the tactic of passive resistance.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right—we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen."…in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant…passing of the buck. …Obviously there is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks… If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible.”
Now, is there anything wrong from learning from all of this, and fighting fire with fire, so to speak? These rules are like a modern version of The Art of War, by Sun Tzu, timeless tactics and strategies for victory. Thus, what could possibly be wrong with things like making the enemy live up to their own position? We do that all the time in our wonderful articles here, which take on the elites every day. I do not see anything morally wrong with doing to the bad guys, exactly what they have done to us. Some, may feel that this is even weak, and a stronger response is needed, but, not me. I will stick with old Sam; just me and Sam.