Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

[Walker]

Notice how the Alinsky agenda is only concerned with rights defined by the agenda. The idea of objective human obligations is foreign to it. Obligations are defined by the agenda. The essential obligation is to further the will of the agenda. It is what a slave does. That is why the greatest atrocities are justified when they are believed to further the agenda. “The Ends Justify The Means.”

I see you're still using your 'fake news' Alinsky agenda then.

The Left relies on hyperbole and ridicule. With his street-smart savvy, President Trump observes that they are vulnerable to the same method so he uses it, but with greater skill and timing because of his experience in business. Alinskyites are slowed down by either a recessive humour gene or gigantic blind spots, so this president has a distinct edge, especially since his experience on the mean streets has liberated him from attachment to the method itself, as it is useful only for its effectiveness.

5. ‘“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.’ There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”

Twisting truth is also another method. For instance, Clinton recently publicaly communicated to President Trump on an open forum: "Seriously, you asked Russia to hack me on national television ..."

The thing is, I was listening back then during the debates when he said it, and he did not say that. She is twisting the truth, a favourite Alinsky method, for it sends the target off on a backtracking expedition, explaining to correct the record that the Alinskyite has just changed, but corrections don't carry the same impact as the lie first told.

[-1-]

I really don’t see what your problem is. Where is the incoherent lie? I quoted Einstein and used the Hermann’s book as a source. That isn’t a lie. What is so impressive about a documentary? Do you really believe a documentary on Obama written by advocates of the Alinsky agenda will have any truth in it? What I do know is that Einstein and Hermann’s had direct knowledge of the atrocities the human condition is capable of and were capable of a depth of thought frowned upon by the Alinsky agenda.

The concept of objective conscience or soul knowledge described by Plato is ancient knowledge that was well known even before Plato. What is so odd about saying that it is only through awakening objective conscience that humanity can survive the human condition? Of course it is poison to secularism which insists that indoctrinated social morality is the path to human ethical evolution. The concept appears so offensive to you that you must call introducing it is just “too much.”.

Of course I cannot verify if Plato wrote anything or if Einstein thought anything. What has been attributed to them has given the world something valuable and I am invited to verify it through efforts of self knowledge.

God forbid I would associate what is called human progress with superficiality and pettiness. If you’re ever open to debating if modern culture is defined by superficiality and pettiness and the most profound exchange of depth of collective opinions takes place in tweets, I’ll be your huckleberry.

Look, you quoted Albert Einstein from a book that was fiction, and you took it at face value. Then you built an argument around a fictional character's utterance.

I asked you if the utterance was a fact, or part of the fiction. You said you did not know.

I rest my case.

------------

I am not going to open any debate with you. You are a slippery eel: you simply glide over arguments that prove you wrong. You have demonstrated that tactic and quality of yours over and over again on these forums. It is futile to argue with you, because you simply either do not comprehend, or else block out by mental disease anything that is text that gives a reasonable explanation to you how and where you are wrong. You are emotionally, and therefore intellectually, unable to accept reason when it is detrimental to your theories.

Many a soul has tried on these forums to show you how and where you got into self-contradictory arguments, and you never once acknowledged even just one of those arguments' validity. This is not because the criticism against you was invalid; it's because you simply do not address any issue that you are asked to. Out of self-defence.

So why do you think I should ask you to enter into any debate with me?

You think it's fun to run into a brick wall headlong first? That's what argumenting with you as an opponent is like.

[Walker]

Shrieking women were following Lindsey.

His response: You’d be welcome in South Carolina.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQgDXWWCpwE



(1861, Fort Sumter)

[Arising_uk]

Thriving on the dirty streets of politics, a fresh shoe shine, a clean suit and shirt every day. ...

How could he not? As he's ben in that club all along. The Clintons were his party going mates not long-ago.

He’s got the Left on tilt, and not a hair out of place. ...

I'm not surprised given the amount of hair lacquer he must use to keep that comb-over in place.

Like the wicked witch they're howling as they melt, oh what a world, what a world.

From over here it seems no different from the rabid rantings of the Right when Obama was in power, you remember, when Trump was spreading the vile slander of Obama not being an American, shades of Hoover methinks(although the irony that you Yanks think you have a Left and a Right is hysterically funny).

[Walker]

The young minds in this link are also confused.
Perhaps they use the same news source.

This fellow went to a big college campus and offered $100 to students if they could provide an example of a liberal speaker shouted down by a conservative (by students on campus).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWHLEgzPWvE

There are no examples.
It doesn’t happen.
Only the Left shouts down and bans speakers.

Maybe if you had an example, and it will require more proof than Kavanaugh's attackers had, you can make a cool hundred bucks by giving him an example.

Alinskyitis is an affliction of the Left, and paradoxically its effectiveness is vulnerable to Alinsky methods. The aim of the Left is power into the hands of an elite. The aim of constitutionalism (Kavanaugh) is power into the hands of We, The People.

This is the cause of all the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth that’s been going on lately.

It's why Clinton and Holder say it's time to stop being nice (civil). The purpose of Alinskyites is revolution, not governance.

[Walker]

Trump was spreading the vile slander of Obama not being an American

Vile? What mean streets are you talking about?



It would be nice to see his college financial aid application, to see if he applied as a foreign student, perhaps for special consideration and to game the system.

You see, as a rule that often gets bent, college in the USA ain't free.

[TimeSeeker]

Look, you quoted Albert Einstein from a book that was fiction, and you took it at face value. Then you built an argument around a fictional character's utterance.

I asked you if the utterance was a fact, or part of the fiction. You said you did not know.

I rest my case.

------------

I am not going to open any debate with you. You are a slippery eel: you simply glide over arguments that prove you wrong. You have demonstrated that tactic and quality of yours over and over again on these forums. It is futile to argue with you, because you simply either do not comprehend, or else block out by mental disease anything that is text that gives a reasonable explanation to you how and where you are wrong. You are emotionally, and therefore intellectually, unable to accept reason when it is detrimental to your theories.

Many a soul has tried on these forums to show you how and where you got into self-contradictory arguments, and you never once acknowledged even just one of those arguments' validity. This is not because the criticism against you was invalid; it's because you simply do not address any issue that you are asked to. Out of self-defence.

So why do you think I should ask you to enter into any debate with me?

You think it's fun to run into a brick wall headlong first? That's what argumenting with you as an opponent is like.

That's a long-winded way to not make any point whatsoever.

If Einstein DID say it then using that as a foundation to build an argument would be an appeal to authority.
If Einstein DIDN'T say it, but it was found in a book (fictional or otherwise) then the author who wrote the book said it.

Either way SOMEBODY fucking said it! And THAT is a fact.

I thought the whole idea behind reason was to evaluate ideas on their merits, not on their source of origin?

Bickering over citations reminds me of my hatred for academia!

[-1-]

The young minds in this link are also confused.
Perhaps they use the same news source.

This fellow went to a big college campus and offered $100 to students if they could provide an example of a liberal speaker shouted down by a conservative (by students on campus).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWHLEgzPWvE

There are no examples.
It doesn’t happen.
Only the Left shouts down and bans speakers.

Maybe if you had an example, and it will require more proof than Kavanaugh's attackers had, you can make a cool hundred bucks by giving him an example.

Alinskyitis is an affliction of the Left, and paradoxically its effectiveness is vulnerable to Alinsky methods. The aim of the Left is power into the hands of an elite. The aim of constitutionalism (Kavanaugh) is power into the hands of We, The People.

This is the cause of all the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth that’s been going on lately.

It's why Clinton and Holder say it's time to stop being nice (civil). The purpose of Alinskyites is revolution, not governance.

No college campus, and no left and no right, but in a secularist Humanist meeting, of hundreds of attendees, a speaker who had become atheist converting from being a preaching ordained minister, was shouted down by two fanatic god-worshippers.

They had to be carried out by security.

Also, in a televised appearance by Prime Minister Trudeau Jr., in front of thousands of mostly leftist people, a few people in the audience shouted him down. Security approached the shouters, and talked to them quietly yet convincingly, because the Rightist shouters shouted up. I mean, shut up.

I don't recall being in a Rightist meeting where the speakers were shouted down by Leftist guerrillas. Mainly, I think, that is so because I never attended so far any neo-Nazi, KKK, Republican, or NRA gatherings.

[-1-]

This fellow went to a big college campus and offered $100 to students if they could provide an example of a liberal speaker shouted down by a conservative (by students on campus).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWHLEgzPWvE

There are no examples.
It doesn’t happen.
Only the Left shouts down and bans speakers.

This is logically false.

The questioner with the money did not ask students to say if they witnessed any Rightist speakers shouted down by Leftist students.

This is a HUGE flaw in the logical and reasonably expected truth of the conclusion.

Maybe it was a campus where NO speakers were shouted down.

I mean, how do you know, how do you expect us to believe that the Rightist speakers WERE shouted down? There is no evidence of it. It is a belief, like a belief in a Christian god: for those who believe in it, it seems self-evident that it exists, but those who go on evidence and require evidence of at least some sort before believing a story, will reject both the existence of the Christian god, and the notion that Rightist Speakers were shouted down, since there was no evidence of it in sight.

[Walker]

There's lots of examples of Left shouting down Right.
If he had offered a hundred bucks for examples of Left shouting down Right, he would have lost money, pronto Tonto.

As it was he lost nothing. Nothing.

The interviewer said, any campus. Not just that campus. I think you missed that little detail.

Just because you're too lazy to research facts doesn't disappear the facts.

For that, you'll have to wait awhile until the media giants have total control of content and censorship.

[Arising_uk]

Vile? What mean streets are you talking about?

Vile suits the Trumpette very well, not least because he kept dropping this slander even after a President of the United States was forced to publish his birth certificate despite him obviously having had to have been vetted in the first place, or is it that Hawaii is not a state of the US? How ironic given the Trumpette won't even follow the convention of publishing his tax-returns to show that he upholds the law that is supposed to represent.

It would be nice to see his college financial aid application, to see if he applied as a foreign student, perhaps for special consideration and to game the system. ...

But a draft-dodging and likely tax-dodger is just a player is he?

You see, as a rule that often gets bent, college in the USA ain't free.

It shows.

[Walker]

Before President Trump, the country was in bad shape.

Now the country is in good shape.

These criticisms of the President that made it so?

Yawn.

Folks can't seem to adjust their notions of causation to reality.

And then, blame Trump for the lack of comprehension of what is, and how it came to be. They even attack Trump, the source of positive change.

This is baseless criticism.

And, it's pretty much worthless of value, except as illustrations of Leftist insanity, interpreted via the thread title.

[Walker]

7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

Bashing Trump is old news.

The Obama bad times are old news, and the mindset of the old news only serves as a negative contrast to reality, which is now, and can only be now.

Now is good news.

Now is Trump prosperity.

*

So maybe now, move on with the thread topic?

Namely, the Alinskyites only want to destroy the good news, the prosperity, the reality that is.

This is because Rules for Radicals is about destroying the reality that is, for revolution.

[Walker]

... he kept dropping this slander ...

Dream on.

A twice-elected millionaire ex-president would have a tough time proving he was harmed by Trump's words, and actual proof of harm other than hurt feelings is required for slander. (Maybe not on your mean streets. )

Besides, he might have to cough up those financial aid applications, given the seriousness of the charge. (Alinsky rules) Financial aid fraud is a crime.

Vile. How about, horrific? That sounds much worse, and thus more effective a wound. The Big Lie has to be convincing, and Obama was the master until the stark contrast against Trump exposed him even to the fanatical faithful Alinskyites, who already knew because they consider a good liar to be intelligent and virtuous, and clever enough to take advantage of the moment.

[Nick_A]

-1-

Look, you quoted Albert Einstein from a book that was fiction, and you took it at face value. Then you built an argument around a fictional character's utterance.

I don’t know if you are just being low or just ignorant but either way calling Hermanns' book fiction is just nasty considering what he and Einstein witnessed. Here is a little on Hermann’s. I’ll post the conclusion

http://www.williamhermanns.com/Bioadult.html

In 1983 William Hermann's book Einstein and the Poet - In Search of the Cosmic Man was published by Branden Press. That same year the Einstein-Hermanns Foundation was incorporated by William Hermanns, Kenneth Norton and Ulf Sjödin to foster reliance on intuition for intercultural exchange and understanding. Through grassroots efforts the World Youth Friendship Parliament was inaugurated on July 1, 1988 at the seaside Villa Muramaris on the Swedish island Gotland in the Baltic Sea. In September 1989 the Mayor of Mönchengladbach honored him for his life’s dedication to reconciliation between Jews and Christians at a city-sponsored reunion of its citizens who fled the Nazis, and on the following day the Mayor of Verdun awarded him the Verdun Medal of Honor for his dedication to the reconciliation between the French and Germans.
This is just brief glimpse of his life, as he met many notable people, journeyed through a variety of religious traditions as a mystic and had the expansive poetical sensibilities that often quoted Heine who wrote of poets: Heaven high jubilating, to death sorrowing.
William Hermanns transitioned 7 months later on April 6, 1990 in San Jose, California.

Those like Hermann’s and Einstein fought against the descent of human beings into automatons. The problem is that the alinsky techniques furthering communism strive to create automatons or as Simone Weil wrote: “things.”

The Alinsky mind must hate the conclusions of the efforts of those like Einstein to awaken our latent powers of conscience and intuition. Recognizing it as anything but fantasy opposes the supremacy of the state to create indoctrinated automatons.

I can see why you must oppose the concepts of objective value and conscience but the fact that there have been those like Einstein and Hermanns capable of discussing the reality of the human condition and unite in efforts to awaken humanity is encouraging to me. It means some are capable of using their minds in ways that invite the human potential to unite science and religion: facts and objective values to bring about the cosmic man regardless how efficiently the secular mind struggles against it..