Right Wing Fighter

Category: Political Activism

“Rules for Radicals,” or, “How to Make a Nuisance of Yourself”

Some of the scrappier members of the Right in America have talked up Rules for Radicals, a decrepit book by the decrepit Saul Alinsky. However, Rules for Radicals is of no help to a healthy, normal citizen.

Alinsky’s whole goal with the book, as he stated, was to show the “have-nots” how to take power from the “haves.” In short, how the “out” members of society could get “in” by using the system against itself. Method was to use the system’s rules against itself.

An example? The “fart-in.” Much like a sit-in, only it has a nauseous smell. The idea, of course, is that the “fart-in” people are doing something disgusting, which at the same time is not strictly against the rules. What deliberative committee has rules against farting? As such, they assail the senses of the committeemen without actually breaking the rules. And since committee-types tend to be dominated by the rules, they think they can do nothing unless it’s laid out in the rules. As such, the most they can do is sanctimoniously lecture the “fart-in” people about being childish.

The list continues, and is in fact almost endless. What the Alinskyites do is use any establishment rule against itself. Since those rules are almost endless, the tactics for attacking the establishment are almost endless.

Abusing the rules is not new. For instance, the filibuster is just an abuse of parliamentary procedure. Since generally speaking a member of a parliament or congress can’t be kept from talking, he can stop the entire body from deliberating by just keeping talking. It’s an abuse of the rules. But it’s one that deliberative bodies have found to be frequently healthy. And so it remains.

Winston Churchill can furnish another example, though a less healthy one parliamentarily speaking.

The British House of Commons was to vote on a bill to allow a man to marry the sister of his deceased wife. A friend of Churchill’s, Hugh Cecil, who was also a member of the Commons, convinced Churchill that this was a bad idea. The reasons aren’t important to this example.

Now, they were outnumbered on the bill, and it would have passed even if they voted against it. If they had simply stayed away from the Commons, the vote would have taken place without them and they would have lost. So here’s what they did instead: they entered the House of Commons, and proceeded to crawl to where their vote would be recorded. Their crawl speed was not enough to beat the clock, and so the time to vote expired, and the bill was shelved. Needless to say, such abuse of the rules brought ridicule on both of them. But it brought no lasting harm to their reputations.

Alinsky and Co. go much farther, as noted above. They are fringe types. Many of them are political desperadoes. That is, they have no place in politics and they know it. As such, the exercise of power, no matter how decrepit or disgusting, is enough for them.*

The whole point of Alinsky’s tactics is to give power to people who have no right to wield it. They are generally incompetent, decrepit, and stupid. As such, his tactics fit them accordingly. There is nothing constructive about “Rules for Radicals.” There is nothing useful for society. There is nothing healthy about it. As such, it’s entirely unfit for anyone that wants to build up civilization. Anyone that wants to conserve his nation, his people, will find nothing useful in Alinsky. He was a freak and an outcast. The only difference was he was an outcast with intelligence. As such, he had the ability to get much of what he wanted, instead of just whining about it, like many fringe types do.

That is why he dedicated his book to Satan: he was signalling his utter psychological separation from what was normal. Satan is the ultimate outcast: he began the rebellion against God, and is the figure-head of evil. In such company, Alinsky did not feel himself out-of-place. He had no desire for respect at all. He hadn’t the least care for what people thought of him. And being an outcast, and an intelligent one at that, he was willing to use any tactic short of criminality to get power. And that’s only because you can’t have power locked between three concrete walls and a set of bars.

And that is what his followers and devotees want: power. That, incidentally, is why they have no idea what to do once they finally get power. Having no goals other than power, the attainment of it leaves them goalless. Thus they founder and vacillate.

And so, to return to my starting point: Rules for Radicals is of no help to patriotic, healthy, normal people. It’s only a rule book for social outcasts who can’t get respect, and who want power exclusively.



* Some people convince themselves that they are desperadoes in order to use Alinsky’s tactics. These people are neither intelligent nor brave. But they still want to be respected and have power. Lacking intelligence and courage, they can’t work within the present system to get what they want. As such, they convince themselves that they are really on the outside. They identify with fringe groups. They talk, plan, and philosophize with fringe groups. In short, they try to make themselves into fringe types. Having done so, they become hardened to the shame of their former social class. That is the whole point of the above noted associating with fringe types: the idea is to move psychologically away from the class they were born into. Thus they will cease to value the criticism and shame of their former class, and will be able to respect themselves and exercise power at the same time.

This may sound a little bizarre, so I’ll explain.

In order to maneuver in a well-developed system, you must have intelligence. In order to get anything done which the system does not want done, you must have courage. You must be willing to confront the present system and force it to go where you want it to go. Trump is a good example of this. He has braved the skewed Republican primary system and come out the winner. This is because he has both intelligence and courage.

Now, some people born into a higher social class want power. But they don’t have the intelligence and courage to exercise it. As such, they can either be the pawns of the system in order to keep respect (which many of them do), or they can abandon the system. Having grown up in it, it’s difficult for them to do. They have to shift the back of their mind away from an association with that higher social class to something lower. Thus they associate almost exclusively with the fringe types. The point is to shift their mental center of gravity to a different point.

Nonsense at American Thinker

An author named Fritz Pettyjohn at American Thinker, after recounting a brief amount of electoral history since Reagan, had this to say:

So we’re left with constitutional conservatives and libertarians. But we don’t control the Republican Party. The Chamber of Commerce controls the Republican Party. These people are in it to line their pockets. The first step to putting a New Conservative Coalition together is to take control of the Convention in Cleveland. By doing so, we will write the rules for the 2020 primary, and write them in our favor. We also preserve our conservative platform, and improve it. Not only will we remain pro-life, we’ll also become pro-Article V, and pro-transfer of federal lands to the States. Come 2020, these could both be powerful issues.

This is just fantasy. I quote it because it is representative of not a few members of the right today. Let me explain.

Pettyjohn thinks it’s possible to take control of the convention in Cleveland Ohio this year. How does he plan to do that? He has already, farther up the article, noted that the old Reagan coalition has dissolved. He has, in this quote, noted that the Chamber of Commerce controls the GOP. So where is he going to get the necessary delegates to the convention in order to control it? In a word, where is his base of support?

And how exactly will he rewrite the primary rules in his own favor? Is he going to change the delegate count each state has? How can he possibly manage that, since it will evoke the opposition of every entrenched interest in the GOP?

His whole idea is purely imaginary. There are many on the right today that sit down in front of their computers and declare what “has to be done” and how to do it. But they don’t realize what they advocate is impossible.

It seems to be a form of escapism. Declare what “has to be done” in firm tones, and then leave it at that. I reckon they do it because they don’t like the state of politics. I don’t either. But sticking your head in the sand doesn’t help.


Political Activism

In order for political activism to work, the activist must have a clear, concrete goal.

For years now the right has talked vaguely about the constitution, liberty, conservative principles, and so forth. But what has been the net result? How has it worked?

It hasn’t worked at all.

Before Trump, what were our presidential prospects?

Either Bush or Clinton.

All the vague talk on talk radio; all the magazine articles; all the speeches and fundraising appeals: and what was the result?

We were about to be saddled with either a republican globalist or a democratic globalist. Neither of them care about the constitution or some vague idea of liberty. What they do care about is power.

Tonight I was looking at Breitbart, and they had this quote from Mark Levin’s radio show today:

He [Levin] further criticized the media and Trump for preventing “the liberty message, the Constitution message, the conservative message, the Reagan principle message” from getting out.

What a bunch of vague nonsense. The “liberty message, the Constitution message,” what does that even mean? For years the right has been blathering about vague “principles,” but they (a) never get beyond principles of process; and (b), most of their “principles” at bottom lead to globalism.

First let me explain principles of process.

A principle of process is one that defines how something is done. For instance, the commonplace conservative principle of the free-market is a principle of process. It doesn’t say “we want to make 5 million jobs,” or ” we want to end Muslim jihadist attacks in the United States.” Instead, the free-market principle says “we want economic relations between the government and private industry to function like this.”

In short, a principle of process is one that defines how something is done. In this case, it is how commerce is conducted.

A principle of goal is a principle which defines a particular goal as important. For instance, the goal “eliminate the US debt within 20 years” is a principle of goal.

Principles of process aren’t bad, as long as they are subordinated to a goal. When you take a principle of process and just run around with it in your head, you ignore the needs of the situation and keep acting according to a process that may not apply at all.

The second problem listed above, is that most “conservative” principles today lead to globalism in the end.

When you apply free-market thinking to global markets, the nation-state will cease to exist because it is no longer an economic unit.

When you apply the commonplace principle of “freedom of movement” to everyone on the planet, then, in order to be principled, we have to let unlimited numbers of people immigrate to our country and, yet again, cease to be a nation-state.

When you apply the oft-stated “conservative” principle that the government is a necessary evil, people see themselves and each other as disconnected individuals, no longer living in a national community under laws that govern all. Instead, people see themselves as the victim of an ever-present governmental demon. Because of this, people cease to think of themselves as members of a national team, and instead as so many survivors scrambling along on their own.

And the list continues. As I said, “conservative” principles at bottom lead to globalism.

To come back to my original point: to have an effect on politics, one must have clear, concrete goals. I can’t stress enough how destructive vague goals are. Assume that if your goals are vague, your followers wont be able to understand you. In fact, that is usually the case, and usually why right wing political activism fails.