The Liberal Progressives have learned their Saul Alinsky tactics well:
Saul Alinsky Tactics:
“Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. … Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.” p.126
Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat…. [and] the collapse of communication.
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.)
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 counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time….”
8. “Keep the pressure on, with 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.”
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside… every positive has its negative.”
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
> “…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’
“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (pps.127-134)
MEET THE ‘BULLIES': BREITBART EDITOR EXPOSES OBAMA’S ARMY OF THUGS IN NEW BOOK
by Ben Shapiro
January 7, 2013
President Obama and his leftist allies like to claim they’re anti-bullying. They stand up for the little guy. They stand up to the powerful. They protect victims.
They’re liars. What’s more, they’re the true bullies, as I explain in my new book, Bullies: How The Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).
Standing up to the bullying of the left was Andrew Breitbart’s chief mission in life. That’s why Bullies is dedicated to him – Andrew was a mentor to me. I met him when I was 17 years old, a sophomore at UCLA. Andrew saw a column I wrote in the UCLA Daily Bruin and emailed me. That’s what Andrew did. He identified people who wanted to fight back, and he nurtured them. That’s why he’s so irreplaceable. And that’s why we must live up to his dream: of an American public empowered to fight the bullies.
It’s a fight we must embrace. Leftist bullying reaches new heights every day. And it has found its apex in the Obama administration.
Just take a look at the White House anti-bullying program. In March 2011, President Obama led a White House conference on the supposed scourge of bullying plaguing America. There hadn’t been an uptick in childhood bullying by any available measure; in fact, bullying was down across the board. But President Obama spoke up loud and strong against bullying. “Bullying isn’t a problem that makes headlines every day,” he boomed. “But every day it touches the lives of young people all across this country.” He launched a website under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services to combat bullying. And, of course, he joined forces with the It Gets Better Project.
But Obama wasn’t really against bullying, as I explain in Bullies. When the DHS wasn’t busy running StopBullying.gov, they were busy bullying religious employers into violating their consciences by forcing them to cover contraception for employees. And who headed up the It Gets Better Project? Dan Savage, the thug who screamed at Christian teenagers who had the temerity to walk out on one of his anti-Biblical screeds.
Obama isn’t against bullying. Neither is the left more broadly. After all, when someone stands up to a bully – say, Israel standing up to Islamic terrorists, or even George Zimmerman standing up to a young bully pounding his head into the pavement – the left goes berserk.
Actually, the American left has become the greatest purveyor of bullying during the last half-century. That’s the dirty little secret: buried beneath all of the left’s supposed hatred for bullying is a passionate love for bullying—the use of power to force those who disagree to shut up, back down, or face crushing consequences up to and including loss of reputation, career destruction, and even death.
In order to accomplish their bullying tactics, however, the left has to portray itself as the defender of victimized groups. Those who oppose their political agenda are then portrayed as oppressors of those victimized groups, morally deficient folks who deserve to be run out of town on a rail. The agenda supposedly starts with anti-bullying. It ends with bullying the hell out of everyone on the other side of the aisle.
The left’s goal is to shut down the political debate by decrying their opponents as victimizers. They label their opponents racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, benighted, backwards bitter clingers. They liken them to Nazis, KKK members, terrorists. Then they cast them out like lepers from the political debate. Because who would bother debating a Nazi, or a KKK member, or a terrorist?
This is how the left wins arguments. They polarize Americans from each other. They separate us by groups. They divide us, and they conquer us. They convince us that we’re either victims who deserve recompense or oppressors who must bow to the yoke.
We are no longer E Pluribus Unum. Disagree with President Obama? That’s because you hate black people. (Want to ignore 14% black unemployment, though, and you’re a hero to the left.)
Compare 1966 to TODAY (Occupy Wall Street); What do you see? Progressive Remix of Marxist/Communist Ideology
Are Liberals Using Intimidation/Shame tactics (ends justify any means) in Wisconsin Recall Election? Where is Eric Holder in This?
Using tactics straight out Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has released a scathing report attempting to isolate and ridicule the Tea Party movement. Filled with leftist talking points and blanket statements, the SPLC report,“Rage On The Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism,” asserts Tea Party alignment to “Timothy McVeigh and Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph,” “hate groups,” “furious anti-immigrant vigilante groups,”and ”so-called ‘Patriot’ groups.” In the eyes of the SPLC, the average American citizen is
“shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism.”
The report identifies “Tenth Amendment Resolutions based on the constitutional provision” as signs of growing radicalization. Wow. It’s now radical to uphold the Constitution. Ironically America’s Founding Fathers were radicals in their day when they wrote the Constitution.
As it echoes themes from the Department of Homeland Security report last year on right-wing extremism the report provides no background support for its accusations and fails to acknowledge the wide variety of left wing extremism. Clearly its author Mark Potok missed the recent news about violent left wing extremists Joseph Stack and Amy Bishop. I think it’s about time to ‘Alinsky’ the Alinskyites.
Continue reading more here:
Obama’s NLRB Unleashes Ambush Elections on America’s Job Creators. Will “Mafia Style” Protection Money from Businesses Come in the Form of Union Dues?
Intimidation, threats are the mainstay of Big Labor.
What a lot of Americans don’t know is the history of Richard Trumka, the Mine Workers Union and a mine worker during a strike in 1993.
The DEATH of Eddie York:
Trouble viewing video? Click Here.
Union Violence Meets the Sopranos
Trouble viewing video? Click HERE
Let’s discuss this further:
1993: Trumka Goons Gunned Down Eddie York. Union Intimidation and Tactics Exposed. **PLUS: Saul Alinsky’s time with the Mafia
From: The Progress Report
Interview with Saul Alinsky, Part Four
Saul Alinsky was interviewed by Playboy in 1972. Alinsky was asked about his “learned experience” from the MOB.
Interview with Saul Alinsky Part Five
ALINSKY: None at all, since there was nothing I could do to stop them from murdering, practically all of which was done inside the family. I was a nonparticipating observer in their professional activities, although I joined their social life of food, drink and women: Boy, I sure participated in that side of things — it was heaven. And let me tell you something, I learned a hell of a lot about the uses and abuses of power from the mob, lessons that stood me in good stead later on, when I was organizing.
Rubbing Raw the Sores of Discontent Then Galvanize Them. Independent VOTERS: Educate Yourself to the Ideology Trying to Take Hold in America
Rub raw the sores of social discontent
“The despair is there; now it’s up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change. We’ll give them a way to participate in the democratic process, a way to exercise their rights as citizens and strike back at the establishment that oppresses them, instead of giving in to apathy. We’ll start with specific issues — taxes, jobs, consumer problems, pollution — and from there move on to the larger issues: pollution in the Pentagon and the Congress and the board rooms of the megacorporations. Once you organize people, they’ll keep advancing from issue to issue toward the ultimate objective: people power. We’ll not only give them a cause, we’ll make life goddamn exciting for them again — life instead of existence. We’ll turn them on. – Saul Alinsky
Union Thuggery: More Criminality in Verizon Strike. Has the Union gone too Far? Saul Alinsky tactics learned from MOB?
From Canada Free Press:
By Warner Todd Huston
December 6, 2011
There was once a famous liberal congressman from New York who reminded his opponents that they could have their own opinions but not their own facts. This, of course, was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the few respectable liberals of his or any other day. But, for the most part, the left operates on pushing the lie until it is accepted as “fact” whether it is true or not. And the leftist blog Crooks and Liars pulled a doosie this week.
Apparently the guffaw inducing leftist blog thinks that the Occupy protests have been completely peaceful despite the hundreds of arrests, the rapes, the property destruction, theft, and other various act of lawbreaking! No, they are not joking.
C&L, blogger John Amato centered his risible claim upon the video of the “bedlam” that occurred at a recent college football game that saw the Oklahoma State University Cowboys beat the University of Oklahoma Sooners. As the game ended, OSU fans flooded the field to celebrate. Unfortunately, in their exuberance to tear down the goal posts upwards to twelve fans were hurt.
Amato called this a “riot.”
“Some reports called it as terrifying as a natural disaster,” Amato luridly began. “Thousands of crazed fans rushed onto the field. It’s a typical response at many college football games, but this one caused massive injuries to people participating in the rioting.”
Rioting? It was hardly a “riot.” It wasn’t anything to excuse, mind you, but to call it a riot is hyperventilating at its worst.
I have to thank Tina Korbe who brought this to my attention at her HotAir blog. Now, I don’t bother much with lefty blogs. After all, who needs lefty blogs when the Old Media fills that bill so excruciatingly? Usually I only hit the lefty blogs when I want to see the left’s reaction to a particularly hot story, so this one I missed. But Korbe was at that game and she has a first hand account of the “riot.”
Now, it just so happens that I was in Stillwater, Okla., for this game — and I’d characterize the atmosphere afterward as anything but violent. Jubilant, ecstatic, buoyant, sure. But violent? Not so much. Nevertheless, it’s incumbent upon me to say — and, honestly, I’m very happy to say it — that injuries caused by excessive celebration after a football game are unnecessary, inexcusable and regrettable.
Korbe’s account aside, it is easy to see that the fans on the field were not there to destroy the place. Save tearing down the goal posts, as stupid a tradition as there ever was, the fans were just happy not overly destructive. This was hardly the sort of riots we’ve seen in years past when pro basketball teams have won the big game.
Regardless, Amato seriously tried to compare the “riot” at the football game to the “peaceful” OWS protests. He lamented that OWSers were treated to pepper spray and had the evil police pushing them around. Those poor OWSers were treated to a “Stasi-type response” by the man… man. Why, those kindly OWSers were just “sleeping in tents,” ya know? What could be more peaceful?
Amato then went on to decry the money that it cost “to medically transport and treat severely wounded people and clean up after this violent outburst.”
All this arm waving and foaming at the mouth is a perfect example of the great lie, a misdirection used to distract people into accepting that his underlying premise was fact. However, in truth it is the OWS “movement” that has cost cities across this land — and therefore you and I as taxpayers — millions of dollars in police overtime, repairs to destroyed public property, and streets and san clean-up crews that had to dispose of the OWSers bodily fluids left in bottles all over these “protests.”
Worse, the act of injudicious jubilation at the football game was nothing compared to the nearly 400 criminal acts perpetrated by OWSers at their anarchic “protests.” And this does not include the breaking of the many thousands of small laws — like permit requirements, vagrancy laws, and rules meant to keep protests orderly and safe for both protesters and passersby. In fact, every single OWS protest has broken these laws. None of them got permits, none of them observed any of the laws and ordinances passed by the cities in which they gathered.
This is quite unlike the Tea Party movement that was forced to hold to every single tiny little law on the books to be “allowed” to hold their protests over the last two years. Further, this is unlike the Tea Partiers that had no arrests, no destruction of private property, no rapes, no… well, nothing like the criminal activity perpetrated by the Occupiers.