Obama's Radical Playbook by Saul Alinsky

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

Conservatives need to take off the kid gloves and fight fire with fire!

Liberals/progressives/socialists are tactically superior in indoctrinating socialist ideas in the minds of the people and are able to build a solid platform supporting their socialist dogma. Their motto epitomizes the "end justifies the means".

On the other hand, perhaps because most conservatives are moral based and refrain from employing tactics that they consider impolite or aggressive.

Saul Alinski in the 70's wrote a book on radical activism and techniques to sway the masses to support specific causes..... these causes are not necessarily based fact or truth... but emotion.

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

Obama and the libs use this as a blueprint to advance their agenda, one of which is the decimation of 2nd Amendment.... the exploitation of children by the ant-protection gun cotrollers is a perfect example of rule #9. It exchanges rational thought with emotional irrational thought.

It is time that the conservative minded people use the same techniques and reverse the liberal non-sense that people are buying into.

The side that plays nice loses in todays politics!

A link to Alinsky's rules------>>>> Rules for Radicals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is time to call a spade a spade and not sugar coat our opinions for fear of offense!

I will start here...... Obama is not a liberal, nor a progressive but a die-hard socialist.... raised by socialists and his policies are socialists!

 

[jgreiner]

His mentor was an avowed communist......Frank Marshal Davis. And If I recall, Obama was a registered member of The New Party, which was a socialist org in IL.

 

[Frankingun]

It's definitely time to start using their own tactics on them. We're not in a fair fight.

I'm starting with ridicule myself.

 

[Captain Bligh]

Perhaps the OP misunderstands what Alinsky referred to in Rule 9 as "threat?"

Alinsky spent much of his energy fighting the Democratic machine in Chicago...then Mayor Daley...by using some humorous, simple, and effective strategies. Often he did nothing except plan events, leak what he was going to do , and get Daley to capitulate to avoid embarrassment. For example, he planned to bus people into O'Hare to stand in line at urinals and sit in stalls so folks getting off planes couldn't relieve themselves. Another time, he bought a block of tickets at a symphony for some disenfranchised folks and was going to feed them a bean dinner before it so they could make their own music and disrupt the event. That is what Rule 9 means -- plan something audacious, tell the opposition what you are planning to do, and the threat of your action alone will be enough to get them to change their behavior.

I actually read the book back in the day and admired him for his cleverness.

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

Perhaps the OP misunderstands what Alinsky referred to in Rule 9 as "threat?"

Alinsky spent much of his energy fighting the Democratic machine in Chicago...then Mayor Daley...by using some humorous, simple, and effective strategies. Often he did nothing except plan events, leak what he was going to do , and get Daley to capitulate to avoid embarrassment. For example, he planned to bus people into O'Hare to stand in line at urinals and sit in stalls so folks getting off planes couldn't relieve themselves. Another time, he bought a block of tickets at a symphony for some disenfranchised folks and was going to feed them a bean dinner before it so they could make their own music and disrupt the event. That is what Rule 9 means -- plan something audacious, tell the opposition what you are planning to do, and the threat of your action alone will be enough to get them to change their behavior.

I actually read the book back in the day and admired him for his cleverness.

Interesting history..... I was inferring that these rules should be enbraced by conservatives as a way to counteract liberal garble. My opinion was that # 9 also implies creating non-existent threats such as the idea that "guns" cause crime and therefore much be banned. Present the image of children and the populace's imagination runs wild.

 

[netsecurity]

Perhaps the OP misunderstands what Alinsky referred to in Rule 9 as "threat?"

Alinsky spent much of his energy fighting the Democratic machine in Chicago...then Mayor Daley...by using some humorous, simple, and effective strategies. Often he did nothing except plan events, leak what he was going to do , and get Daley to capitulate to avoid embarrassment. For example, he planned to bus people into O'Hare to stand in line at urinals and sit in stalls so folks getting off planes couldn't relieve themselves. Another time, he bought a block of tickets at a symphony for some disenfranchised folks and was going to feed them a bean dinner before it so they could make their own music and disrupt the event. That is what Rule 9 means -- plan something audacious, tell the opposition what you are planning to do, and the threat of your action alone will be enough to get them to change their behavior.

Yea, like the Chik-Fil-A lesbian kiss day.

What people don't understand is how central RFR is to Obama's presidency. He taught a class on this book, and understood the tactics so well that it got him a job as a Community Organizer at ACORN, and his example there got the attention of the Chi-Town Commies, who gave him a job and backing. They knew they could trust him because he was a true RADICAL. He had proven to be a die hard leftist radical, and knew how to use Allinski's rules to great success, so he was the Left's obvious choice for president.

Never before has this country had a radical president. This totally sucks. The worst thing is that the Right warned everyone in 2008 exactly what he was, and everyone blew them off saying that the Right was being partisan and engaging in hyperbole (and the leftist media covered for him, and still do!). Voters really are dumb and easily manipulated overall, and this is a fact, otherwise Hitler wouldn't have gotten elected, as well as many other radicals in the past.

 

[miguel]

Conservatives need to take off the kid gloves and fight fire with fire!

Agreed.

But soon some jackass will post, "If I have to be like them, then I'm no better than them, so I'm not gonna do it." ****ing dopes...

 

[Captain Bligh]

...

What people don't understand is how central RFR is to Obama's presidency. He taught a class on this book, and understood the tactics so well that it got him a job as a Community Organizer at ACORN, and his example there got the attention of the Chi-Town Commies, who gave him a job and backing. They knew they could trust him because he was a true RADICAL. He had proven to be a die hard leftist radical, and knew how to use Allinski's rules to great success, so he was the Left's obvious choice for president...

As INGO's token liberal, I'm more of a fan of POTUS than most around these parts. That said, if you read Rules for Radicals and Dreams of My Father, you get a picture that POTUS did NOT have "great success" as an organizer and probably didn't hold a candle to Saul Alinsky.

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

Agreed.

But soon some jackass will post, "If I have to be like them, then I'm no better than them, so I'm not gonna do it." ****ing dopes...

That in my opinion is the main problem! A refusal to counter political opposition in a ways that may be considered impolite or dirty. The socialists have no problem doing whatever is necessary to further their agenda.

Here is a quote from a discussion with a few liberals on the east coast concerning swat teams confiscating weapons::

What's wrong with SWAT teams doing house-to-house searches? Between the gun owner licensing and gun registration databases, it should be pretty easy.

Actually, I would be counting on it. That would give the government an excuse to incarcerate them. And once they are convicted of a crime, they would no longer have the right to vote, based on Republican voting standards. If you take away gun owners' right to vote, it becomes much easier to implement our socialist agenda.

If history is going to repeat itself in America, it will be the gun-owning members of the Tea Party Movement who will most likely be our Brownshirts and the SS will be all of the private mercenary armies that Halliburton/Koch Industries have been contracting over the years. The only people who will be persecuted are liberals like me and it really won't matter if we have the right to bear arms or not, because most of us wouldn't know how to shoot a gun even if we needed/wanted to. So excuse me if I would prefer to disarm the Fourth Reich than trust them to protect my freedoms

If you want to compare America of today with 1930s Germany, then you have to accept the correct parallels. RINOs like Dubya, Romney, Boehner, and McConnell are the modern-day equaivalents of Hindenburg and the German center-right. Obama and the Democrats are the equivalents of the German center-left. The only possible equivalent to the Brownshirts (at the very least - there is no American equivalent to Hitler) is the TPM.

These are examples of the Obama socialist propaganda that the media happily pushes on the American people.



This was my final reply to this group:

The big difference the Holocaust card is about real history and your liberal drbble about Tea party brownshirts is a fantasy in your own mind! Fantasy and fact are not comparable, one exists and the other does not. Your quotes are taken out of context. It was a discussion about Why Jews Hate Guns in light of the truth of the Holocaust. Hitler and his political machine killed murdered Jewish Germans by the thousands. Now show me the facts that George Bush, Boehner, McConnell and the Republicans systematically murdered any group of Americans....... it is only your sick liberal neurotic fantasy! Now you have stated that you think the government should send swat teams and incarcerate Americans for exercising their Constitutional rights....... that statement to me is far closer to the mindset of a Hitler than anything you point out!

So how do conservatives counteract this kind of foolishness on a National level.