PDA

View Full Version : Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals



Green Arrow
06-12-2014, 04:30 AM
This book got a LOT of press during the 2008 elections, and while mention of it has died down to almost non-existence since then, the prevailing theory was that this was an evil book that taught radicals how to destroy the system, and Barack Obama was an avid lover of the text. I was right in the middle of this, having worked for John McCain's 2008 campaign, but after the elections were over, something a friend of mine said to me stuck with me. I was preaching against Obama at my school and mentioned Rules for Radicals, and he asked, "Did you ever read it?" I was struck speechless, because I hadn't ever really thought about it before. I hadn't read it at all. "Then how do you know what's in it?"

After that, I resolved never to criticize a book until I had actually read it, and in 2012 bought myself a copy of Rules for Radicals. So, here, I will be reading it chapter by chapter, and reviewing it as I go along.

Redrose
06-12-2014, 04:37 AM
This book got a LOT of press during the 2008 elections, and while mention of it has died down to almost non-existence since then, the prevailing theory was that this was an evil book that taught radicals how to destroy the system, and Barack Obama was an avid lover of the text. I was right in the middle of this, having worked for John McCain's 2008 campaign, but after the elections were over, something a friend of mine said to me stuck with me. I was preaching against Obama at my school and mentioned Rules for Radicals, and he asked, "Did you ever read it?" I was struck speechless, because I hadn't ever really thought about it before. I hadn't read it at all. "Then how do you know what's in it?"

After that, I resolved never to criticize a book until I had actually read it, and in 2012 bought myself a copy of Rules for Radicals. So, here, I will be reading it chapter by chapter, and reviewing it as I go along.

I've read it. Obama is following it to the letter.

Redrose
06-12-2014, 04:47 AM
Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" or better known as the Socialists handbook.


This is a book which has influenced many on the left. Hillary Clinton wrote her thesis about the book and Barack Obama went to Chicago to learn Ailinsky's techniques for community organizing and wrote Chapter 4 in his biography.


The significance of the community organizer is not that is shows Obama's lack of experience but that it shows his allegiance to a philosophy which encourages power at any cost. Which we are witnessing now.


The Rules for Radicals book is really interesting it lays out exactly how to debate with conservatives (including using ridicule) and it is dedicated to Lucifer, the original radical. That should tell you what we are up against.

We must keep Hillary out of the WH. She speaks with a forked tongue and can pass the buck faster than a drunk at a strip club.

Mr. Freeze
06-12-2014, 07:01 AM
It's an interesting book and if you believe in the path being as important as the end result then you'll see why these people are assholes to be avoided at all cost.

The Roves and Alinsky's of this world should be dragged into the village square and beaten.

How you get to where you are going IS important because chances are you will never get to your destination and all you have is the path.

Refugee
06-12-2014, 07:04 AM
This book got a LOT of press during the 2008 elections, and while mention of it has died down to almost non-existence since then, the prevailing theory was that this was an evil book that taught radicals how to destroy the system, and Barack Obama was an avid lover of the text. I was right in the middle of this, having worked for John McCain's 2008 campaign, but after the elections were over, something a friend of mine said to me stuck with me. I was preaching against Obama at my school and mentioned Rules for Radicals, and he asked, "Did you ever read it?" I was struck speechless, because I hadn't ever really thought about it before. I hadn't read it at all. "Then how do you know what's in it?"

After that, I resolved never to criticize a book until I had actually read it, and in 2012 bought myself a copy of Rules for Radicals. So, here, I will be reading it chapter by chapter, and reviewing it as I go along.

Now that I would find interesting. I’d never really heard of it before I came on this forum, but even without having read it, I predict it a handbook of progressivism.

Common Sense
06-12-2014, 07:10 AM
Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" or better known as the Socialists handbook.


This is a book which has influenced many on the left. Hillary Clinton wrote her thesis about the book and Barack Obama went to Chicago to learn Ailinsky's techniques for community organizing and wrote Chapter 4 in his biography.


The significance of the community organizer is not that is shows Obama's lack of experience but that it shows his allegiance to a philosophy which encourages power at any cost. Which we are witnessing now.


The Rules for Radicals book is really interesting it lays out exactly how to debate with conservatives (including using ridicule) and it is dedicated to Lucifer, the original radical. That should tell you what we are up against.

We must keep Hillary out of the WH. She speaks with a forked tongue and can pass the buck faster than a drunk at a strip club.

I've never read it, but I have read about it...and it's not dedicated to Lucifer. but he does have a quote that (as an atheist, is sort of a joke) that acknowledges Lucifer as the first radical. As an athiest doesn't belive in the devil...it's a tongue in cheek joke.

Mr. Freeze
06-12-2014, 07:14 AM
I've never read it, but I have read about it...and it's not dedicated to Lucifer. but he does have a quote that (as an atheist, is sort of a joke) that acknowledges Lucifer as the first radical. As an athiest doesn't belive in the devil...it's a tongue in cheek joke.

It is a meaningful joke, not tongue in cheek. There is within certain left-radicals an inclination to praise Lucifer as a mytholofical figure. I live in a counter-culture world with many of my best friends being anarcho-syndicalist atheists. They do look up to Lucifer as an iconic figure.

Which is greatly ironic as the was the first "bait and switch" asshole to trick man.

Ohhh, look you get to live in a garden and not work or have a care in the world, have some knowledge--must better for you.

Then BAM!

Suddenly childhood's over and you have to work for a living.

Nice work, Satan you asshole!

Common Sense
06-12-2014, 07:18 AM
It is a meaningful joke, not tongue in cheek. There is within certain left-radicals an inclination to praise Lucifer as a mytholofical figure. I live in a counter-culture world with many of my best friends being anarcho-syndicalist atheists. They do look up to Lucifer as an iconic figure.

Which is greatly ironic as the was the first "bait and switch" asshole to trick man.

Ohhh, look you get to live in a garden and not work or have a care in the world, have some knowledge--must better for you.

Then BAM!

Suddenly childhood's over and you have to work for a living.

Nice work, Satan you asshole!

Except when you see him as a fictional character, then he's a joke.

Mr. Freeze
06-12-2014, 07:31 AM
Except when you see him as a fictional character, then he's a joke.

No, among "intellectuals" it's not a joke. It's a rallying cry and an archetype. Think John Galt for objectivists and conservatives and you'll get why it's not so funny.

Common Sense
06-12-2014, 07:32 AM
Us leftists are all just a bunch of Satan worshipers...

Mr. Freeze
06-12-2014, 07:41 AM
Us leftists are all just a bunch of Satan worshipers...

Don't do that. If I choose to call you a leftist and a satan worshiper, I will. Trust me. I have no problem saying what I mean.

Refugee
06-12-2014, 06:17 PM
I think that generally Europeans have a much clearer idea of what Obama and his friends really are. Leaving aside GA’s predictable remarks, we are not fooled by, ‘fundamentally changing America’ meaning anything other than socialism when said by a Marxist, or believing that a Democrat could never also be a communist. They’re a play on definitions and we can spot them a mile off. We also know that ‘Progressivism’ is cultural Marxism, not to be confused with a scientific definition of human progress.

The Obama’s, the European Commissioners and our own European politicians are experts in disguising themselves with double speak terms, but their policies give them away. They’re taught these techniques and it’s why it’s so difficult to pin them down; they don’t tell lies, (too easy to be caught out), they just don’t tell the truth. They are experts in giving prepared speeches and if you were asked later what they said, you wouldn’t really have a clue as they didn’t actually say anything of value, but it sounded nice.

It’s why socialized healthcare becomes the Affordable Health Care Act, or mass welfare according to Pelosi is good for the economy and produces employment. How can you argue that producing employment is wrong? Or that mass immigration is good for the economy and so becomes something that’s needed . . . . . it’s all designed to confuse and I’m sorry, but they’re running rings around the average American. These people are the sons and daughters of the earlier radicals bringing you the same message of destroying society, but using a more subtle version than that of a bloody revolution to do it.

It’s not a secret, these people even write books on how to do it and you can take your pick; The Communist Manifesto, The Thoughts of Chairman Mao, The Anarchist Cookbook . . . . . I suspect ‘The Rules for Radicals’ is simply an update version of how to destroy society using psychology instead of firing squads. Start with a huge welfare government dependent population, an increasingly militarized police force, FEMA camps and start working towards it from there.

Libhater
06-13-2014, 03:21 PM
The Communist Manifesto, The Thoughts of Chairman Mao, The Anarchist Cookbook . . . . . I suspect ‘The Rules for Radicals’ is simply an update version of how to destroy society using psychology instead of firing squads. Start with a huge welfare government dependent population, an increasingly militarized police force, FEMA camps and start working towards it from there.


Lest anyone forgets the Cloward/Piven handbook that ties in beautifully with Alinsky's Rules for Radicals in how to bring our nation's economy to its knees so that the people will forever be indebted to the statist/collectivist government from cradle to grave, and to where production and or growth comes to a standstill.