Guests may browse all the site, but only registered users can post in the main forums.
Unregistered users may post in the Free Range Talk Forum

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rules for Radicals - Saul Alinsky
#1
Are you ready to start reading?

Let's begin and check back on Thursday to see how far along everyone is.
"Some people have a way with words. Others...oh...not have way." - Steve Martin
[-] The following 1 user Likes Gern Blanston's post:
  • rockchalker52
Reply
#2
I've been a slacker on this. I haven't had a good chunk of time to start this and give it the attention it deserves.

Has anyone else started reading it yet?

What are your thoughts on it so far?
"Some people have a way with words. Others...oh...not have way." - Steve Martin
Reply
#3
Lol!  Slackers R us!  I'm halfway through the first chapter & have come across a few points that made me think 'Ooh, I need to discuss that!'  Then I turned out the light & went to sleep.  Now, I need to reread them.  Stay tuned!
Reply
#4
(10-28-2016, 04:20 PM)susnus Wrote: You could name any group's action or a person's actions as being that of the KFC approach or rules - I think its just common sense when the goal is to attack opposing forces and isolate those forces and rev up your own agenda.

This a thousand times.
"Some people have a way with words. Others...oh...not have way." - Steve Martin
Reply
#5
(10-28-2016, 04:20 PM)susnus Wrote: apropos to this post


BornAgainAmerican Wrote: [url=http://lawrenceunderground.com/post-57095.html#pid57095][/url]Ya'll go ahead and review Alinsky.  Apparently, you have been unwittingly practicing Alinsky tactics on this here web site without even knowing you're doing it. This absolutely proves that you're sheople since you've been following the direction of your leadership like "Bummer, Hitlery, Wassername-Schitz, Hairy Weed, etc. and well behind the learning curve in this matter.  As for me, I'm focused on absorbing the information explosion that is uncovering the means with which Alinsky tactics are being executed by Dims in Wikileaks, Project Veritas, FBI emails, and the current on-going investigations that show the massive corruption in our government and in particular, the massive corruption inside the Dim Party using Alinsky tactics. To further clarify what I just said, I'm studying the proof that what conservatives have been saying about the left for decades is true.   Be sure to read and discuss what Alinsky has to say about ethics, ends and means.  This should be a good exercise for the uniformed on this here web site and I encourage it.  Have fun.

And what is more interesting is how BAA utilizes those rules himself. You can see it very clearly in the Tom Hayden thread.

He managed to hijack a thread and turn it into his own crusade against what he believes to be a common enemy - Communists. Now this tactic would have worked well during McCarthy's time period (who also used the same tactics pre-book) and you can see it as well when he and A99 used terms such as "lib", "prog" and "Dims".

It is funny how much some people project their own weaknesses and fears on to others thinking that if you label the enemy with your issues then you have put them on the defensive.  In fact, that was a large move out of Karl Rove's playbook.
"Some people have a way with words. Others...oh...not have way." - Steve Martin
[-] The following 1 user Likes Gern Blanston's post:
  • susnus
Reply
#6
So I am working on the prologue and the most striking thing I have read so far is that the message is communication is the key to getting others to connect with your cause. Not seeing how this is radical at all. Alinsky even suggests humor as a way to do this.

I have a couple of passages that I find really interesting..

Quote:These rules make the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one who uses the tired old words and slogans, calls the police "pig" or "white fascist racist" or "motherfucker" and has so stereotyped himself that others react by saying, "Oh, he's one of those," and then promptly turn off.

The failure of many of our younger activists to understand the communication has been disastrous. Even the most elementary grasp of the fundamental idea that one communicates within the experience of his audience - and gives full response to the other's values - would have ruled out attacks on the American flag. The responsible organizer would have known that it is the establishment that has betrayed the flag while the flag, itself, remains the glorious symbol of America's hopes and aspirations, and he would have conveyed this message to his audience.

Hillary referenced the movie "Lincoln" when talking about strategy and a private vs public opinion but the above strategy completely demonstrates what Lincoln did during the civil war and in convincing key players to help pass the 13th Amendment. Tailoring your message to your audience is not a new or a radical strategy.

Quote:As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be - it is necessary to being where the world is as if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.



I think this rings very true. In order to change a system, you have to know and understand how it works. You can do this by being a part of that system.
"Some people have a way with words. Others...oh...not have way." - Steve Martin
[-] The following 1 user Likes Gern Blanston's post:
  • susnus
Reply
#7
(10-31-2016, 06:32 PM)susnus Wrote: I guess a moment's repose from posting gave me this thought - Rules for Radicals, by title sounds to be the very thing that Alinsky doesn't propose in his book.

But the accusers who associate your posts or thinking with being that of Alinsky, who would seem to be some great progenitor of lib - prog - dim - agenda, not only do these accusers use the Alinsky rules theirselves, but often resort to simple tRumpian tactics of deny, delay, insult - monkey flinging poo at the zoo.

IKR? What is funny is that some keep harping on Alinsky's "means justifies the ends" obviously haven't read the book at all and I don't think they would understand it if they attempted to do so.

Those folks here don't have an original thought in their head. All the stuff they post here is simply partially digested material that was regurgitated into their brains (similar to how birds feed their young) by the latest right wing website. And the folks pre-chewing the material for them didn't get past the title on Alinsky's book to being with.

Now that I have had a chance to read more, those fools are not really utilizing Alinsky's rules but rather are doing the opposite. One of the main take-aways from Alinsky's book is that communication is key.
Quote:These rules make the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one who uses the tired old words and slogans, calls the police "pig" or "white fascist racist" or "motherfucker" and has so stereotyped himself that others react by saying, "Oh he's one of those," and then promptly turn off.

But here we have folks go on and on and on about "libs", "progs" , "commies" , etc. that they have turned people off. No one really listens to their message and the people that at least say ok, I'll check out your link find out it is more of the same old tired drivel. There is nothing meaningful in their message and they certainly don't feel that they should even attempt to understand others' experiences in better to connect with them and get them to agree or at least legitimize their message.

Also, I'd like to address one of the rules you listed and how it is misinterpreted. I kind of think you didn't interpret it very well either.


Quote:“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

Alinsky in no way shape or form meant that this was to be negative against others. Or that you are so negative that the opposition attacks you physically. It is referenced as what is considered a negative in your group and turning it into a positive. He uses Ghandi's passive resistance as an example of this.  Passivity, generally, is considered a negative trait. It is one of non-action and is seen as a trait that allows others to push you around.

Alinsky explains that Ghandi (as written in his autobiography) was astonished at the passivity and submissiveness of his people in that they were not violent or retaliating against the British. He even posits that Ghandi would have used violent resistance had he the means to but he didn't. Alinsky uses Nehru's statement about Kashmir to back this up. He also references the general "personality" of the Indian people of those times - generally passive and not given to retaliation or giving any inertia - also he tapped into general religious beliefs and organized the Indian people using traits that are general considered negative into positive action, namely passive resistance as a successful tactic.
"Some people have a way with words. Others...oh...not have way." - Steve Martin
[-] The following 1 user Likes Gern Blanston's post:
  • rockchalker52
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Our Amazon Picks


Donate With PayPal