Right Wing Fighter

Category: Political Tactics

“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.

Advertisements

The Psychology of Clinton’s “I’m With Her” Slogan

Have you shaken your head at Clinton’s “I’m With Her” slogan? You’re not alone.

Here’s what it’s all about:

Clinton’s campaign is little more than a feminist projection. Hillary has no qualifications to be president. She has no accomplishments. She also has no connection to an ethnic or economic group. For instance, Obama was the candidate of the non-white electorate. Romney, on the other hand, was the candidate of the wealthy.

But Hillary has no such group appeal. Instead, she’s trying to appeal to the female sex. The psychology of “I’m With Her” is this: it’s an invitation to women to imagine they are Hillary. She is inviting them to treat her as their avatar.

We’ve all seen those cardboard cutouts of muscle-men with the face missing so you can put your head in. That’s what Hillary is inviting women to do: imagine that, though Hillary is the body, the mind is theirs. “I’m With Her” would more accurately read “I Am Her.”

Sound bizarre? Consider this. We imagine ourselves to be heroes in books, movies, and music all the time. One of the main appeals of music to many people is that they can pretend they are the protagonist and thus escape their weaknesses. In their minds, they put on the character of a stronger person for a little while to ease their own thinking.

Many women in America are feminists. But since feminism is unnatural, it’s grinding them down over time. They are crossing into their later years, and losing hope in the Good News of feminism. The goal of the Clinton campaign is to connect with these women, make them treat Hillary as their avatar, and as such to give them a chosen one to justify and reinvigorate their faltering faith. The psychology is this: “if Hillary can do it, so can I. I can still succeed as a feminist if Hillary can”*.

To some extent it’s working. She’s doing pretty well with women at the moment. But it’s too narrow a strategy to win in the end. There simply aren’t enough women of that stripe to carry Hillary across the finish line. She’d need to pull in support from some other groups, and she’s not capable of doing that. Her only hope is that Trump destroys himself, which I highly, highly doubt.

 

*This is also going to give Clinton’s campaign a number of desperately devoted supporters. Since their whole world hinges on Clinton’s win, they are going to work hard to get her elected. Additionally, they are going to desperately hate anyone who opposes her.

Why are the Political Parties in America so Balanced?

I’ve been wondering for a long time why our political parties are so balanced power-wise. I kept wondering, “why don’t these guys go for the knockout blow?” Issues like immigration reform, for instance, are very popular. So why didn’t they reach for them?

I believe the answer is this: big money keeps them balanced. Just like Julius Caesar kept the tribes of Gaul fighting each other, so to big money keeps the parties more or less equal in strength. Being equal, big money can easily tip the one against the other, should one get too strong.

So for instance, let’s say big money keeps the Republicans from going after immigration reform and also from America First foreign policy. The GOP of course know nothing of this as a plan, and thinks this is merely what big money wants as a matter of philosophy. Thus the Republicans are kept in a weak position with the voters. And if they get out of line with big money, say they want to reform banking laws, then big money can throw more money into the Democratic camp to push them back.

Basically, big money keeps the armies roughly the same size. And when it wants to tip the scales, it gives one of them more ammunition. A lot more.

Mitt Romney must have appeared to them the perfect candidate. Being the definition of corporate businessman, he also inclined to let others do his thinking for him. As such, he was both on the side of business from the start and easy to manipulate.

That explains why he was able to raise the staggering sum of 1.1 billion dollars for his campaign. For contrast, Bush and Kerry combined raised 880 million dollars in 2004.

When you maintain the balance of power, you control events. If forces are equal, it only takes a slight push one way or the other to tip events. This, I believe, is what big money is doing.

“Making the Case™” Doesn’t Work

In modern politics, when a man on the right talks about “Making the Case™” for this or that, he’s signalling that he’s already lost. I’ll explain below.

If a lawyer makes a case in court, what is he doing? He’s highlighting laws and court decisions from the past, and drawing logical lines to his client’s case. In short, he’s trying to show that those laws and decisions support his client’s plea.

In politics it’s exactly the same. When a man is Making the Case™ for something in politics, he’s highlighting political doctrines and drawing lines from them to his goal.

For instance: some lame-brained people on the right have tried to say that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to America because their religion does not believe in equality. What these people are doing is saying we should be unequal, because Muslims are being unequal. What they are saying is:

Equality > Muslims are violating it.

Equality > Let’s violate it ourselves, to keep them from violating it.

It makes no logical sense. And Making the Case™ is all about logic. They are bound to fail. (As a note: I fully support a Muslim ban. But arguing that we should be illiberal to keep illiberal people from coming here to be illiberal is a stupid tactic.)

I highlight the above to show why Making the Case™ fails. It utterly depends on precedent. But what is the political precedent, more or less, in America? Liberalism. As such, it can’t be used to justify illiberal things. That is why “making the case” doesn’t work: it depends on outside authority. And all the outside authorities are liberal.

So what do we do instead? Simply declare the truth. You’ve seen me do it here many times. Trump does it. Theodore Roosevelt, who was very successful politically, did it too.

You see, the majority of the American people are illiberal themselves. We can just speak to them about what we both know to be true. Instead of finding precedents and drawing lines from them to our actions, we can speak to them about what we both know to be true. We can build political strength that way. We can win elections that way.

And what other way is there? Making the Case™ has failed for decades because it depends on liberalism. Declarative statement is the way to go. Besides, the liberals aren’t prepared for it. It will give them a good pounding initially.

And finally, the media isn’t prepared for declarative statements. What they try to do is get you tied up in illiberal conclusions. They say “Well yes Mr. Fighter. But what about the poor people that are just crossing the border to come here and be free? What do you say to them?”

What he’s asking is “How do you reconcile this with liberalism.”

I would answer: “I don’t say anything to them at all. They have no right to be here and will be sent back.”

The media would faint. The people would cheer. And America would be a nation again.

And what did I do? Did I draw lines from outside authorities on why they have no right to be here? No. I simply stated it. I made a declarative statement.

Work it into your thinking to make declarative statements in politics. Making the Case™ fails.