Right Wing Fighter

Category: Politics

“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.

“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.

Outsourcing

Outsourcing is a particularly bad example of globalism. Sending our jobs to other countries to get things made cheaper is little more than a betrayal of our own citizens. How can they support themselves without jobs? How can the country be strong if it produces less and less each year? Yet business by and large doesn’t seem to mind, except some small businesses. To the bigger ones, it’s just about getting the bigger buck.

And why is this so? Did companies in the past sell out their own country’s workers for a better bottom line? Didn’t they feel any loyalty to their fellow citizens? To a greater extent they did. Of course there were globalists, even far in the past. But local business ties were stronger, say, a century ago. But nowadays, business is focused, again aside from smaller ones, on bigger bucks. They aren’t loyal to their own countrymen. This is a disgrace and a good reason why workers don’t tend to trust their employers as much as, say, the GOP does. The conduct of the Chamber of Commerce, which is basically a union for businesses, is telling.

The Chamber of Commerce is focused on more workers and less regulation. That’s why for several years now they’ve been considered an asset to a number of people on the right: some on the right are simply anti-government, and the Chamber’s anti-regulation goals line up pretty well. And since not a few on the right are mere anti-government ideologues, the fact that the Chamber also supports increased immigration and amnesty isn’t a deal breaker. This is because some on the right don’t recognize that the nation exists. They don’t see a country, they see an economy. Because of that, they have no loyalty to it.

But with the rise of Trump and what might be called the American Worker’s Revolution, the Chamber has been under increased attacks, as have big businesses that put profits ahead of their workers and countrymen. American workers are natively patriotic, and this is driving a wave of nationalism as they get reengaged in politics. The Democrats should beware: these are the same blue-collars that gave Reagan a landslide victory in ’80 and ’84. They’re setting up to do so again. This is also a warning and a call to action for GOP members of congress and of state governments. If they want to win at the ballot box, they’ve got to support pro-worker policies.

These policies include:

• No amnesty for illegals

• Decreasing legal immigration

• Cutting guest worker programs

Additionally, they should support commonsense worker education at the state level to get young workers and people who have lost their jobs ready for work. They should also actively encourage business to help with worker training for our native stock of citizens.

If the GOP were to become the worker’s party in America, they would have incredible success. As it is now, they squeeze by as the “Not Democrat” party. That’s why there’s no enthusiasm for the GOP. To be successful, they must embrace workers.

How the Right can Succeed

For the Right to succeed in politics, it has got to align itself completely with the people. For decades, it has refused to do so. It has always considered populism as something dirty or uncontrollable, and has shied away from it. The fact is, many on the Right would rather lose to the liberals than win with the common, everyday people of America. Why?

To start with, some of them are just snobs. They prefer the refined, “cultural” things in life that most Americans, myself included, don’t care about. Art, classical novels, and so forth, are nice and all but they don’t pay the bills. The right wingers that prefer such things I’ve dubbed the “High Right.” They’re basically American and patriotic, but they don’t like to descend below a certain level that they have in their minds. Their thinking tends to be abstract, intellectual, and completely useless. They can’t get anything done, because they never come down from the clouds of philosophy long enough to do it. They tend to be the gatekeepers of opinion on the right, since they give more time to intellectualism.

On the other hand, there’s what you might call the “Low Right.” To these people, the heart and soul of America is simply doing whatever you want, as long as nobody gets hurt. Many talk show hosts are part of the Low Right. Basically, their whole “philosophy” can be summed up as: do what you want, and let others do the same. They can’t fight the liberals at all, since liberalism is basically a headless, immoral version of their own philosophy. And so they mostly stagger around like slightly confused monkeys, not sure what to say or do next. Their minds and thoughts are never clear.

The average American, like yours truly, for instance, doesn’t care about the Right’s obsession with either (A), artistic living; or (B), freedom to do anything that doesn’t impede other people. Most of us know, for instance, that drugs must be illegal because they are destructive. The High Right sneers at drugs, as being dirty. The Low Right is a little worried about drugs, mostly from habit, but at bottom doesn’t oppose them as long as the user doesn’t hurt anybody. Of course, this is stupid. Whatever we do affects everyone around us. And to pretend that it doesn’t is just sticking their heads in the sand and humming loudly. Besides, there is no right to self-destruction.

In order for the Right to win, it must come back to normal, practical reality and look at the world the way the average American does. The Right needs to be both practical and tough, not whimsical and airheaded. There are real problems that must be solved. Some of them have to be solved by the government. Trump is succeeding because he’s being practical and tought. He’s looking problems in the face and dealing with them. He doesn’t care about the Right’s obsession with “liberty” or art. If the Right wants to win, it must learn from his example.

The Right Wing in America is Locked in the Cold War

The reason that the American right wing is so useless today is that they are still fighting yesterday’s battles. In the 80s there was a real threat of totalitarianism in the world. The Soviet Union was on the march, and many leftists here at home still hoped to bring about Soviet style communism here in America. American patriots were trashed day in and day out in the liberal press.

But Reagan ended all that. Now, the Soviet Union is gone, and communism only exists in backwaters like Venezuela. Nobody in America is serious about bringing about communism anymore. But the modern right, the X Generation, who are in their early to late 40s, think politics is still a struggle against a crushing, tyrannic philosophy. The problem is the X Generation came into adulthood right at the end of the Cold War. Thus their minds were shaped right before an epoch shift. Their view of politics was outdated almost as soon as they got it. This has led to a kind of trauma, where the world they had just settled into was suddenly ripped out from under them.

You can especially see this in their dealings with Bill Clinton in the 90s. The right was utterly lost. They didn’t get some kind of footing until he was already halfway through his administration. Even today, they still struggle to reconcile their Cold War thinking to the Obama administration. They never actually figured Obama out, because he didn’t fit the communist mold they carry around with them. If you listened to a lot of talk radio like I did for the first six years of Obama’s administration, you could hear them day after day trying to figure him out. You may have been surprised at this, like I was.

The thing is this: people like to get cozy with a particular frame of thinking. People don’t like to change their thinking once they’ve settled into it. The X Generation settled into Cold War thinking, and then like I said it was pulled out from under them. It became irrelevant. For years they stumbled along in the wilderness, so to speak, trying to find their footing. They’ve never actually managed to do so. They just get kinda used to a president after a while. Since the right was more or less in its youth during Clinton’s administration, their aimlessness was harder to see. During George W. Bush’s administration, they didn’t want to oppose him since he was a Republican, and so again it wasn’t very noticeable.

But with Obama, it was stark and clear, though very confusing to look at. I kept asking myself “Why don’t these guys really nail Obama? Why do they keep dancing around the edges?” The answer is they are lost, like I mentioned above. That’s why they look like a bunch of half-balding old guys, intellectually speaking. They look like people whose prime has long since passed. The fact is they never had a prime to begin with – Reagan ended that when he won the Cold War.

So now we have a bunch of irrelevant kooks trying to be relevent in a world that has passed them by. That is why they’re always, embarrassingly, trying to get people fired up by talk about “liberty” over and over again, like it is self-evidently the purpose of life. Declaring “liberty” over and over again made sense when the left in America was doing the exact opposite, and was trying to stampede us into a top-down society. But nowadays it’s out of date because communism is dead.

And that, as a side note, is why they can never stop talking about Reagan and communism: they’re going back, in their minds, to a time when they were relevant.

Why Donald Trump is Surging

Donald Trump is successful today because he is filling a need Americans have. For decades, normal, everyday Americans have been attacked and smeared by the left in this country. The media, Hollywood, and not a few major companies have been involved in the left’s strange, unpatriotic attack on normalcy and Americanism. Modern conservatism has completely failed to push back against the left, and this failure has led to more fatigue than the mod-cons know.

Consider first the anti-Americanism of Hollywood. For years they’ve been putting out movies that have depicted Americans as weak, bigoted, or just plain stupid. They’ve also made movies designed to attack our military, economy, and religion. It’s common for movies to paint Christianity in a bad light. This is so commonplace that we assume it’s just a normal part of life. But it’s nothing short of a revolutionary attack. When in times past have the mainstream sources of entertainment actively attacked their own country’s religion? Did the gladiatorial games in ancient Rome attack their gods? Did the festivities of ancient Japan attack their religion at every turn? Clearly this is something new under the sun.

And what about the mainstream media’s attacks on the military? Every prisoner mistreated by a US solider is trumpeted day and night by the “news” media. They dedicate special programs, documentaries, and endless interviews to dealing with “the problem of prisoner abuses by the US military.” The way they talk, you’d think that prisoner abuse is commonplace. Of course it’s not. The US military has probably the best record for prisoner treatment of any military in history. But they parade any abuses they find to drive a wedge between the military and the people. Their strategy is endless divide and conquer, and so they look for any opportunity, any opening that they can drive a wedge into.

And what about just plain old patriotism? Now we have schools that have banned American flags on Cinco De Mayo because it might offend Mexican immigrants. Who cares if it offends them! This is the United States, not Mexico. If they want their cultural icons, traditions, and holidays to be revered, they should have stayed in Mexico. It’s rank arrogance to move to another country, and then expect them to adopt your culture. It would be like Ohioans moving to Japan, and then demanding that the Japanese start observing the Fourth of July. It’s a whole new level of arrogance to demand that a country that you’ve moved to change to suit your tastes.

And not only has our culture been attacked, but even our livelihoods have been threatened. In many cases they’ve been destroyed altogether. Detroit? A pale, battered shadow of its former self. It used to be a bustling, wealthy city full of good paying manufacturing jobs. Now it’s just a hollow shell. Globalism has wreaked terrible havoc on our economy. All across the Midwest and much of the Northeast, formerly healthy, happy towns have been ruined by free trade. Unrestricted commerce has hollowed out our country and transformed many places into service and transportation only job markets. There are not a few truck driving jobs, but they’re for transporting foreign-made goods.

Donald Trump is a complete course reversal. When the left attacks America he reflexively defends it. He doesn’t even think about it. He doesn’t have to. Unlike the phony intellectuals of the right, who have to conjure reasons to defend America, Trump just states that America is good and leaves it at that. He doesn’t think he needs to justify patriotism like the useless right has done. He skips all the gobbledygook about “American Free Enterprise,” “Limited Government,” and so forth, and simply defends his country like a man defends his mother: because it’s self-evidently the right thing to do. He is a normal, red-blooded American, and other red-blooded Americans love him for it.

In addition to this, he also clearly knows more about the economy and foreign policy than the wonks do. Their thinking is dominated by abstract philosophies they picked up in college, not by real world experience or even common sense. Obviously Iraq was a failure. To step into a middle eastern country and try to turn it into Kansas was complete madness. The people, religion, and terrain are so different that you can’t possibly make it into Little America. He saw this because his thinking is dominated by commonsense. The wonks who have been ruining our foreign policy for seventy years still think Iraq was a good idea. They don’t live in the real world.

And the economy? What victories have we had economically in the past 50 years? Trump sees that our course is suicidal. He sees that we can’t possibly be rich, powerful, and free if we’re dependent on other countries for even our most basic goods. He proposes to change the course of the economy by bringing back the economic policies that built the country in the first place. He wants tariffs on companies that outsource jobs. He wants a protective tariff against foreign goods to protect American industries. He also wants to push back against countries, like China, that are actively working against our economy by manipulating their currency.

And finally, he wants to free the military from its social-engineering lab rat status and turn it back into an offensive weapon. He wants to modernize it, streamline it, and employ it intelligently, instead of scattering it all over the globe protecting other countries for free. The military belongs to us. It is not a global police force. Trump recognizes this, and the people recognize it too. It’s another feather in his cap as far as the average American is concerned.

Trump, in a word, is probably the most purely American potential president we’ve had since Theodore Roosevelt. After decades of policy wonks, crony capitalists, and old guys looking for something to put their names in the history books, Americans are glad to finally have a potential president that puts America first.

Modern Conservatives Don’t Stand for Anything

It stuck me yesterday: for two decades now modern conservatives have been making Hillary Clinton out to be the devil in the flesh. They loved to pound on her day and night. Talk radio especially loved to attack Clinton as being the worst president imaginable.

And yet, many would rather lose to Clinton than win with Trump. Consider Bill Kristol and his efforts to get a third party going just to keep Trump from winning the election. Consider how day and night, many mainstream conservatives have been attacking him more than they are attacking Clinton or Sanders. If Clinton is indeed the devil to these people, how can they possibly be willing to lose to her unless they never actually believed in anything to start with? If she will destroy the country, and yet they prefer her, then what can you conclude other than that the country means less to them than defeating Trump?

They love to blather about their principles. Well what good are principles if you’ll throw away your nation to “preserve” them?

Sometimes I don’t get these people at all. In fact, I never do. I can’t understand how pathetic “principles” of free-market economics are worth more than the nation.

“America First”

Trump has rolled out the slogan “America First” for his campaign. This is fantastic because it says, in a single slogan:

(A): His view of proper US policy;

(B): It conceptualizes what US policy hasn’t been for 70 years;

(C): It is the perfect rallying cry for all patriotic Americans.

I can’t think of a better slogan for his campaign.

The Refugee System is a Scam for America

We should end the refugee system permanently. All we are getting out of it is droves of people from incompatible cultures that put our own people at risk.

Why should the American people have to deal with, say, Muslim Somalis that want to keep livestock in their yards? Why should the American people have to even think about such a thing?

If conditions in Somalia, or any other third world country are so bad, it is the responsibility of its people to set it straight. It is not the responsibility of Americans to have to deal with this.

Now, if rich people, or influential people want to help them in their own countries, then well and good. They should be encouraged to do so. But the moment these same “big hearted” people want to bring them here, where they can’t be assimilated, they must be opposed. The United States is not a charity: it is a nation. This idea that we are responsible for all the poor and oppressed in the world is false. These people are responsible for themselves. We aren’t their guardians.

The Military’s Purpose

Briefly stated, the military’s purpose is to kill enemy soldiers. It isn’t a pretty or nice job, but that is it’s purpose.

Both Republican and Democratic presidents have used it for social engineering projects and for nation building in the middle east. For example, Obama has used it to try to legitimize homosexuals by letting them serve publicly in the military. The point of this is to wrap a certain honor around homosexuals. Additionally, it is supposed to make it mainstream.

George W. Bush used the military as a nation building force when he used it to hold up Iraqi “Democracy” after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Again, that was contrary to the military’s purpose. The military got ground down, both physically and psychologically in Iraq holding up a government that was going to collapse within a few years of our departure. It was a stupid waste of military men and material.

Any government or nation that needs our military to hold it up wont last long. We’d be better off not getting involved if we can avoid it, and leaving in place whatever governments exist. If we have to get involved, we should stay in for as long as we have to for our interests, and then pull out. We shouldn’t risk any more of our soldiers in nations that refuse to fight for themselves.