In looking over some of the leftist blogs, it seems that the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party is still clinging to its feigned superiority and Marxist religion. Once again they are insulting the people who voted “No” against their superior solutions that somehow didn’t work again.
This time it is really bad for them. And they are so depressed again. Their counselors appear to be laughing under their breath again to see them on the couches again crying that the American public has rejected them...again. All they’re trying to do is make things better. Why don’t things get better and how could those hicks vote them out again? What’s wrong with the world?
The Tea Parties have been instrumental in creating a Republican majority in the House, in spite of the left’s efforts to marginalize them. So with that failure under their belt, they continue to marginalize them. Where did these people come from?
ACORN has been defunded by Congress and they've filed for bankruptcy. They were too busy defending themselves in the courts from the last election and they couldn't take Obama's money this time to register fraudulent voters so they could claim a grass roots surge of support from the bottom up. So much for the idea of "the poor man's revolution."
The media was not able to swing many votes this time and so they engage in character assassination of newly elected Republican politicians while decrying character assassination toward themselves.
Our educational system continues to indoctrinate our children with leftist anti-capitalist propaganda while the left ignores the fact that they have failed to educate those children in how to read, write and calculate. So they tell us it is better for America if we continue to let them run the schools.
The global warming scam has been exposed and so they spew fire about how stupid the deniers are in rejecting real impending global disaster that seems never to come.
Glenn Beck is causing George Soros to be exposed for the nation killer that he truly is which causes Soros to lose billions…and the press stands in line to get more of Soros’ money.
The unions are on the verge of going bankrupt because the Republicans are poised to stop the deficit spending necessary to bail them out; and to make things worse, they plan on investigating their ties to Obama.
The cities and states run by Democrats for decades are going bankrupt so they elect the Democrats back into power because they are experienced in government. But Obama will soon not be able to bail them out.
Barney Frank got re-elected and looks forward to the investigation into his role in the sub-prime fiasco.
President Obama wonders how he is going to advance the Alynsky strategy that his college buddies insist upon. Should he just rule by Executive Decree, create an emergency so he can declare Marshall Law or just take dictatorial power while he has the chance?
Everywhere the leftists are talking about the evils of capitalism and how they intend to fight the corporate interests that they’ve been partnered with over the last two years. They complain that the capitalism they tried to destroy has failed, and they even pretend that they are defending the middle class by raising taxes on the people who hire them.
In order to pretend to be courageous, some of them are outing themselves as socialists and calling their collaborators cowards for not standing up and saying it out loud. I think they regret not coming out when they had the chance to mainstream themselves. Now they are looking at another 40 years before they can deceive another generation of Americans into thinking that they are just nice fellows who happen to admire Mao.
What do the leftists have to do to make people think that they are really just a bunch of cuddly nice furry little people who want to make things better with other peoples’ money? Why do Americans always associate them with Stalin and Mao and Castro?
Just watch, one of them is going to start a new company selling little cuddle-bears named Josef, Mau Mau and Fidel. Maybe that’ll help.
That’s the problem with the left. They just can’t sell socialism to the American public – no matter how hard they try to indoctrinate the children. They are now convinced that the right move after Obama’s victory in 2008 would have been to outlaw the Constitution and the elections and just declare Obama ruler for life.
I’m sure George Soros would be sleeping better had they done that.
Showing posts with label ACORN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ACORN. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Anti-"Rules for Radicals"
These Anti-rules are not about strategy; they are about how you can fight the tactics of gangsters and radicals in the communities in which you run your business. A real strategy has to take a broader look beyond tactics and find the principles that must be fought for in order to create a viable society. A real strategy involves a specific set of ideas that you advance on a consistent basis; it is not about defending yourself against the dogma of your attackers. These suggested tactics below are about fighting small-time chiselers and defending your business against their control.
I’ve always hesitated to buy books by my philosophical enemies because I don’t want to support the publishers who bring us lies. This applies especially to progressives who publish books and produce movies. I won’t buy anything by Michael Moore or Nancy Pelosi for instance because I don’t want to create the illusion that their materials are even worthy of an honest man’s attention. In addition, I know enough about what they think to see that they are liars and propagandists for a philosophy that I abhor.
So when the decision came to buying a copy of “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky, I knew that I needed to understand his methods and learn why his ideas were wrong; but I realized that he is a Marxist and most of the “Rules” he created have been practiced by social progressives for decades. So I settled for an Adobe Acrobat document that I found on the Internet. I found it to provide the exact information that I sought. It is called “Alinsky's Rules for Radicals” By Craig Miyamoto. The following is an extensive quote from the document, but I’m going to provide what I consider to be the best antidote for each rule, the Anti-Rules for Radicals, so to speak. You will find these “Anti-rules” following the words “My comment” after each Alinsky rule.
“Known as the "father of modern American radicalism," Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. Activist organizations teach his ideas widely taught today as a set of model behaviors, and they use these principles to create an emotional commitment to victory - no matter what.
Grassroots pressure on large organizations is reality, and there is every indication that it will grow. Because the conflicts manifest in high-profile public debate and often-panicked decision-making, studying Alinsky's rules will help organizations develop counteractive strategies that can level the playing field.
Governments and corporations have inherent weaknesses. And, time and again, they repeat mistakes that other large organizations have made, even repeating their OWN mistakes. Alinsky's out-of-print book - "Rules for Radicals" - illustrates why opposition groups take on large organizations with utter glee, and why these governments and corporations fail to win.
Large organizations have learned to stonewall and not empower activists. In other words, they try to ignore radical activists and are never as committed to victory as their opposition is committed to defeating them. Result? They are unprepared for the hailstorm of brutal tactics that severely damage their reputation and send them running with their tails between their legs.
Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. Here are the rules to be aware of:
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)”
My comment: Anti-rule 1. Realize that radicals attack your business because you have economic power that they want to steal from you.
Never appease a radical by agreeing that he is correct. Find out where he is wrong and take a firm stand based on the facts. If they lie about your company, correct the lie. If they picket you, picket them back. If they come to your organization, send volunteers to their organizations. Don’t use economic arguments; argue on the basis of the fundamental individual rights of the company, the employees and the management. Never argue that you have a fundamental obligation to make bad business decisions based upon their demands. Defend your business decisions based on sound business practices. Refuse to grant them the power to harm your organization and do not capitulate by donating to them. If they scream they are just trying to help the poor, argue that you help your customers by bringing them good products and services at a reasonable price and that is your only obligation. Defend your right to make a profit and don’t give in to their demands.
You must recognize that these radical groups seek power for power’s sake, not to make things better. The flesh and blood that has to pay for that power consists of corporations and their employees that are forced, through bad publicity imposed upon them, to deal with and appease the radicals. The idea that the corporation has an obligation to accommodate the demands of radicals, for fear of bad publicity, is the source of their push for power.
They want you to pay for their meal ticket out of the prices you charge your customers and that means you will not be able to compete effectively against other companies. If you did not have economic power, they would have no desire to shake you down. Use your economic power by insisting that you have a right to exist as a profit-making company. If they violate your property rights, tell them that they are on private property, ask them to leave if they are not there to conduct business, take pictures, get video, identify the individuals and press charges.
“RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)”
My comment: Anti-rule 2. Embarrass them by forcing them outside their expertise.
Ask them how much they know about the reasons for their protests and tape the answers they give. Expose the ignorance of the protestors, not the organizers. Most of these people do not know what they are doing which means you must be competent to spell out the issues, criticize the coercive tactics and put them on the defensive in a quiet dispassionate way. Here you can use video to tape these people. If you can ask these people questions and get answers from them you can use these videos with the media to show that they have no idea what it takes to run a business and that they are phonies.
The purpose of this rule is give their protesters the confidence to take a stand against you. If the people show confidence in their protests, it appears that they know that they are right and this instills fear in you. Remember all they want is for you to be afraid of them and for the public to be ignorant about their lies. Show them to be incapable of discussing the real issues.
“RULE 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.)”
My comment: Anti-rule #3. Be prepared to defend against spurious attacks based on bogus information.
When they tell lies or use spurious accusations and bogus studies, you must be sure that you are ready with the correct responses that will discredit their statements. If they are telling lies, then call them lies. Remember, they are prepared to accomplish a singular goal in the protest and that is to make you capitulate.
This approach was used by ACORN successfully in the 90s when some studies purported to “prove” that banks were discriminating against minorities in their lending practices. The study was bogus but it gained so much traction and got so much national attention that many banks bent over backwards to prove they were not discriminating by giving minorities more loans. This harmed the banks and eventually led to the sub-prime catastrophe. The goal of these tactics is to re-distribute your profits to people who do not qualify for them otherwise. Do not allow them to force you to violate sound business practices and be prepared to defend that policy with clear argument.
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
My comment: Anti-rule #4. Never apologize for making a profit and put out a position statement that you can repeat whenever necessary. The only way to fight this is to assert the value and importance of making a profit and insist that you and your stockholders be able to keep those profits without having them extorted under threat of protest.
“RULE 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. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)”
My comment: Anti-radical Rule #5. If they ridicule you, point out that ridicule is not an argument and insist that they provide a clear statement that explains their goals. If they continue to ridicule you, expose that ridicule as being illogical and unclear.
Ad hominem attacks are not valid forms of argument and they violate clear thinking. Ridicule is what charlatans do in order to imply that the opponent does not deserve to be dealt with in a civil way. Ridicule is the barbarian’s way of winning an argument. It only reveals the utter bankruptcy of the radical movement. They can be defeated by a large dose of what they can’t argue against: logic and reason.
“RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)”
My comment: Anti-radical Rule #6. Tell the truth and you will fight successfully against any tactic of deception.
This tactic essentially says that there is no content to their arguments except worn out saws used by Marxists of the past about capitalism and the profit motive. It says they are not able to justify the protest except to say they are “fighting against corporate greed”. So, in order to ensure that people continue to protest, the organizers must make it fun, perhaps feed the people, take them to a park, have a party, etc. This rule can be easily mitigated by a simple explanation to these people that they are really not accomplishing their goals of helping anyone and are in fact hurting the very people they claim to represent.
“RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)”
My comment: Anti-rule #7. Radical tactics can be easily defeated by a strong philosophical argument that refutes the basis of the tactic.
This is a philosophical struggle and the best term for it is “the individual versus the collective.” It is a battle that seeks to destroy an economic system based upon rational self-interest in favor of collective solutions for individual problems. If you focus on the fact that individual problems cannot be solved by collectives, that collectives wipe out the individual and leave him without a solution; that individual problems can only be solved by individual action; such as education, hard work, good life planning and good decision-making, you can actually be helpful to people where the radicals are harmful.
“RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)”
My comment: Anti-radical Rule #8. Keep the pressure on the radicals. Never let up and never capitulate. Disagree with and fight their coercive tactics.
This rule for radicals assumes that you are wrong and they are right. Do not allow them to get away with this view. Insist that you are right and that you refuse to be coerced. Never grant a semblance of credit to them for thinking that they are doing good. Insist that they are doing wrong to your company and this country. Give them no quarter that they can use to further attack you.
The best way to disagree is to make a statement of principles to support your economic activities. Ensure that these principles are based on Constitutional freedoms and fight for the right to exist as a businessman, an employee or as a private citizen. Find ways to express your statement of principles through advertising, pamphleteering, speeches and other public appearances and stand your ground.
“RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)”
My comment: Anti-radical Rule #9. Remember you are not guilty of anything immoral and you must fight for the moral high ground.
As a businessman, you are the moral agent who has taken an idea and made it work. You offer services and products that people need and you have earned the business of your customers. Your best argument is your competence. Their best argument is that you are not sure of yourself against their assertion of moral authority. Do not be morally intimidated; be morally certain.
The radicals are trying to muscle in on your hard work. Never allow them an opportunity to declare moral equivalency with you. They are immoral and you should treat them that way.
“RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)”
My comment: Anti-Rule #10. Never respond in kind to a provocation.
Stand up for property rights and the rights of individuals to do business with you. Speak out only against their real goals, their methods and their unfair tactics but do so with the highest language and base your speech on enduring principles.
Remember, they are always going to try to provoke a response in order to gin up public support. The media will help them. This tactic is vicious and they have no moral compunction against creating incidents that they can use against you. Never react emotionally but when the law is violated by them obtain the help of law enforcement and prosecute. For them, prosecution means having to defend themselves in court and being labeled a criminal. The more businesses fight back legally against them; better, the more businesses take the legal initiative against them, the fewer people will they be able to enlist as protestors. Who wants to go to jail?
“RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)”
My comment: Anti-rule #11. Never compromise with gangster tactics. Do not give them a seat at the table. Don’t invite them to your meetings, don’t pay protection money and do use the law to fight them at every opportunity.
If you are being extorted, say so openly and fight in the name of your rights first and in the name of civilized behavior second. Finally, fight in the name of the people they claim to be helping and point out that they are not helping. Also, fight in the name of the neighborhood that is being corrupted by gangster tactics, and speak out about the harm it is doing by scaring away other businesses.
“RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
My comment: Anti-rule #12. Let their tactics of polarization work against them by pointing them out. Be ready to defend yourself against unearned attacks that seek to paint you into a moral corner. You can also pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. You can stand for civility and reason while they stand for shakedown and extortion. Don’t be afraid to polarize them for what they are doing.
They need to make you into the bad guy so they can obtain the moral high ground. This has been the tactic of Marxists and fascists for decades. They claim that they are the true defenders of the people and they use this idea to paint themselves as the good guys. Take the moral high ground away from them by fighting for your individual rights to property, good business practices, the profit motive and mutual trade to mutual benefit. These are the proper moral principles in a proper society. Do not let them turn this into a re-distribution of guilt where you give in to them because they say you are a corrupt capitalist. You have to defend your legal and moral rights. You cannot allow them to take the moral high ground.
Other points:
These radicals are not about making communities better; they are about gaining control of your business and forcing it to pay money to them. They are gangsters operating under the cover of charitable organizations looking to extort money from you; they are trying to find ways to launder money through legitimate organizations. If you capitulate to them, your business cannot thrive and neither can the community.
Some of these people will stop at nothing in order to get their way. Some are fully capable of violence and murder. If your business or your life is threatened, these people are poisoning your community and trying to turn it into a territory where they control. If you feel that you cannot do business in a community without living in fear, it is time to close the business and find a better community.
Educate yourself on proper government and proper community relations. Fight against the idea that you have an obligation to accept the moral authority of an extortion gang in a community. Learn to defend your rights by reading the history of our nation, understand the principles of free trade, the pursuit of happiness and civilized behavior and recognize that we must either have a society that defends individual rights or we have no society at all. You may have to become a philosopher to defend yourself but these radicals count on you not knowing how to fight for your rights. They need for you to be weak in order to control you.
I would appreciate any comments or other suggestions on how to fight the tactics of Marxist community organizers.
I’ve always hesitated to buy books by my philosophical enemies because I don’t want to support the publishers who bring us lies. This applies especially to progressives who publish books and produce movies. I won’t buy anything by Michael Moore or Nancy Pelosi for instance because I don’t want to create the illusion that their materials are even worthy of an honest man’s attention. In addition, I know enough about what they think to see that they are liars and propagandists for a philosophy that I abhor.
So when the decision came to buying a copy of “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky, I knew that I needed to understand his methods and learn why his ideas were wrong; but I realized that he is a Marxist and most of the “Rules” he created have been practiced by social progressives for decades. So I settled for an Adobe Acrobat document that I found on the Internet. I found it to provide the exact information that I sought. It is called “Alinsky's Rules for Radicals” By Craig Miyamoto. The following is an extensive quote from the document, but I’m going to provide what I consider to be the best antidote for each rule, the Anti-Rules for Radicals, so to speak. You will find these “Anti-rules” following the words “My comment” after each Alinsky rule.
“Known as the "father of modern American radicalism," Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. Activist organizations teach his ideas widely taught today as a set of model behaviors, and they use these principles to create an emotional commitment to victory - no matter what.
Grassroots pressure on large organizations is reality, and there is every indication that it will grow. Because the conflicts manifest in high-profile public debate and often-panicked decision-making, studying Alinsky's rules will help organizations develop counteractive strategies that can level the playing field.
Governments and corporations have inherent weaknesses. And, time and again, they repeat mistakes that other large organizations have made, even repeating their OWN mistakes. Alinsky's out-of-print book - "Rules for Radicals" - illustrates why opposition groups take on large organizations with utter glee, and why these governments and corporations fail to win.
Large organizations have learned to stonewall and not empower activists. In other words, they try to ignore radical activists and are never as committed to victory as their opposition is committed to defeating them. Result? They are unprepared for the hailstorm of brutal tactics that severely damage their reputation and send them running with their tails between their legs.
Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. Here are the rules to be aware of:
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)”
My comment: Anti-rule 1. Realize that radicals attack your business because you have economic power that they want to steal from you.
Never appease a radical by agreeing that he is correct. Find out where he is wrong and take a firm stand based on the facts. If they lie about your company, correct the lie. If they picket you, picket them back. If they come to your organization, send volunteers to their organizations. Don’t use economic arguments; argue on the basis of the fundamental individual rights of the company, the employees and the management. Never argue that you have a fundamental obligation to make bad business decisions based upon their demands. Defend your business decisions based on sound business practices. Refuse to grant them the power to harm your organization and do not capitulate by donating to them. If they scream they are just trying to help the poor, argue that you help your customers by bringing them good products and services at a reasonable price and that is your only obligation. Defend your right to make a profit and don’t give in to their demands.
You must recognize that these radical groups seek power for power’s sake, not to make things better. The flesh and blood that has to pay for that power consists of corporations and their employees that are forced, through bad publicity imposed upon them, to deal with and appease the radicals. The idea that the corporation has an obligation to accommodate the demands of radicals, for fear of bad publicity, is the source of their push for power.
They want you to pay for their meal ticket out of the prices you charge your customers and that means you will not be able to compete effectively against other companies. If you did not have economic power, they would have no desire to shake you down. Use your economic power by insisting that you have a right to exist as a profit-making company. If they violate your property rights, tell them that they are on private property, ask them to leave if they are not there to conduct business, take pictures, get video, identify the individuals and press charges.
“RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)”
My comment: Anti-rule 2. Embarrass them by forcing them outside their expertise.
Ask them how much they know about the reasons for their protests and tape the answers they give. Expose the ignorance of the protestors, not the organizers. Most of these people do not know what they are doing which means you must be competent to spell out the issues, criticize the coercive tactics and put them on the defensive in a quiet dispassionate way. Here you can use video to tape these people. If you can ask these people questions and get answers from them you can use these videos with the media to show that they have no idea what it takes to run a business and that they are phonies.
The purpose of this rule is give their protesters the confidence to take a stand against you. If the people show confidence in their protests, it appears that they know that they are right and this instills fear in you. Remember all they want is for you to be afraid of them and for the public to be ignorant about their lies. Show them to be incapable of discussing the real issues.
“RULE 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.)”
My comment: Anti-rule #3. Be prepared to defend against spurious attacks based on bogus information.
When they tell lies or use spurious accusations and bogus studies, you must be sure that you are ready with the correct responses that will discredit their statements. If they are telling lies, then call them lies. Remember, they are prepared to accomplish a singular goal in the protest and that is to make you capitulate.
This approach was used by ACORN successfully in the 90s when some studies purported to “prove” that banks were discriminating against minorities in their lending practices. The study was bogus but it gained so much traction and got so much national attention that many banks bent over backwards to prove they were not discriminating by giving minorities more loans. This harmed the banks and eventually led to the sub-prime catastrophe. The goal of these tactics is to re-distribute your profits to people who do not qualify for them otherwise. Do not allow them to force you to violate sound business practices and be prepared to defend that policy with clear argument.
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
My comment: Anti-rule #4. Never apologize for making a profit and put out a position statement that you can repeat whenever necessary. The only way to fight this is to assert the value and importance of making a profit and insist that you and your stockholders be able to keep those profits without having them extorted under threat of protest.
“RULE 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. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)”
My comment: Anti-radical Rule #5. If they ridicule you, point out that ridicule is not an argument and insist that they provide a clear statement that explains their goals. If they continue to ridicule you, expose that ridicule as being illogical and unclear.
Ad hominem attacks are not valid forms of argument and they violate clear thinking. Ridicule is what charlatans do in order to imply that the opponent does not deserve to be dealt with in a civil way. Ridicule is the barbarian’s way of winning an argument. It only reveals the utter bankruptcy of the radical movement. They can be defeated by a large dose of what they can’t argue against: logic and reason.
“RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)”
My comment: Anti-radical Rule #6. Tell the truth and you will fight successfully against any tactic of deception.
This tactic essentially says that there is no content to their arguments except worn out saws used by Marxists of the past about capitalism and the profit motive. It says they are not able to justify the protest except to say they are “fighting against corporate greed”. So, in order to ensure that people continue to protest, the organizers must make it fun, perhaps feed the people, take them to a park, have a party, etc. This rule can be easily mitigated by a simple explanation to these people that they are really not accomplishing their goals of helping anyone and are in fact hurting the very people they claim to represent.
“RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)”
My comment: Anti-rule #7. Radical tactics can be easily defeated by a strong philosophical argument that refutes the basis of the tactic.
This is a philosophical struggle and the best term for it is “the individual versus the collective.” It is a battle that seeks to destroy an economic system based upon rational self-interest in favor of collective solutions for individual problems. If you focus on the fact that individual problems cannot be solved by collectives, that collectives wipe out the individual and leave him without a solution; that individual problems can only be solved by individual action; such as education, hard work, good life planning and good decision-making, you can actually be helpful to people where the radicals are harmful.
“RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)”
My comment: Anti-radical Rule #8. Keep the pressure on the radicals. Never let up and never capitulate. Disagree with and fight their coercive tactics.
This rule for radicals assumes that you are wrong and they are right. Do not allow them to get away with this view. Insist that you are right and that you refuse to be coerced. Never grant a semblance of credit to them for thinking that they are doing good. Insist that they are doing wrong to your company and this country. Give them no quarter that they can use to further attack you.
The best way to disagree is to make a statement of principles to support your economic activities. Ensure that these principles are based on Constitutional freedoms and fight for the right to exist as a businessman, an employee or as a private citizen. Find ways to express your statement of principles through advertising, pamphleteering, speeches and other public appearances and stand your ground.
“RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)”
My comment: Anti-radical Rule #9. Remember you are not guilty of anything immoral and you must fight for the moral high ground.
As a businessman, you are the moral agent who has taken an idea and made it work. You offer services and products that people need and you have earned the business of your customers. Your best argument is your competence. Their best argument is that you are not sure of yourself against their assertion of moral authority. Do not be morally intimidated; be morally certain.
The radicals are trying to muscle in on your hard work. Never allow them an opportunity to declare moral equivalency with you. They are immoral and you should treat them that way.
“RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)”
My comment: Anti-Rule #10. Never respond in kind to a provocation.
Stand up for property rights and the rights of individuals to do business with you. Speak out only against their real goals, their methods and their unfair tactics but do so with the highest language and base your speech on enduring principles.
Remember, they are always going to try to provoke a response in order to gin up public support. The media will help them. This tactic is vicious and they have no moral compunction against creating incidents that they can use against you. Never react emotionally but when the law is violated by them obtain the help of law enforcement and prosecute. For them, prosecution means having to defend themselves in court and being labeled a criminal. The more businesses fight back legally against them; better, the more businesses take the legal initiative against them, the fewer people will they be able to enlist as protestors. Who wants to go to jail?
“RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)”
My comment: Anti-rule #11. Never compromise with gangster tactics. Do not give them a seat at the table. Don’t invite them to your meetings, don’t pay protection money and do use the law to fight them at every opportunity.
If you are being extorted, say so openly and fight in the name of your rights first and in the name of civilized behavior second. Finally, fight in the name of the people they claim to be helping and point out that they are not helping. Also, fight in the name of the neighborhood that is being corrupted by gangster tactics, and speak out about the harm it is doing by scaring away other businesses.
“RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
My comment: Anti-rule #12. Let their tactics of polarization work against them by pointing them out. Be ready to defend yourself against unearned attacks that seek to paint you into a moral corner. You can also pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. You can stand for civility and reason while they stand for shakedown and extortion. Don’t be afraid to polarize them for what they are doing.
They need to make you into the bad guy so they can obtain the moral high ground. This has been the tactic of Marxists and fascists for decades. They claim that they are the true defenders of the people and they use this idea to paint themselves as the good guys. Take the moral high ground away from them by fighting for your individual rights to property, good business practices, the profit motive and mutual trade to mutual benefit. These are the proper moral principles in a proper society. Do not let them turn this into a re-distribution of guilt where you give in to them because they say you are a corrupt capitalist. You have to defend your legal and moral rights. You cannot allow them to take the moral high ground.
Other points:
These radicals are not about making communities better; they are about gaining control of your business and forcing it to pay money to them. They are gangsters operating under the cover of charitable organizations looking to extort money from you; they are trying to find ways to launder money through legitimate organizations. If you capitulate to them, your business cannot thrive and neither can the community.
Some of these people will stop at nothing in order to get their way. Some are fully capable of violence and murder. If your business or your life is threatened, these people are poisoning your community and trying to turn it into a territory where they control. If you feel that you cannot do business in a community without living in fear, it is time to close the business and find a better community.
Educate yourself on proper government and proper community relations. Fight against the idea that you have an obligation to accept the moral authority of an extortion gang in a community. Learn to defend your rights by reading the history of our nation, understand the principles of free trade, the pursuit of happiness and civilized behavior and recognize that we must either have a society that defends individual rights or we have no society at all. You may have to become a philosopher to defend yourself but these radicals count on you not knowing how to fight for your rights. They need for you to be weak in order to control you.
I would appreciate any comments or other suggestions on how to fight the tactics of Marxist community organizers.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Obama's Re-distribution - Part 1
I was engaged in a political discussion with a young lady a few days ago and I made a big mistake. The discussion was about Barack Obama and I was explaining to her that I thought he had planned his moves toward the Presidency since his days at Columbia. I pointed out that his work through the years was done through a close involvement with a radical group from Columbia that later became known as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). Since this was a general conversation, I did not have sources and details at my disposal but I told her that the first organizers of the group originally had the goal of bringing down the American government by registering large numbers of people for welfare in New York; their goal was to bankrupt the government and cause a socialist revolution. [1]
I pointed out that later the leaders of this group moved to Arkansas and started what is now ACORN, the organization that fraudulently registered voters for Obama and was instrumental in creating the sub-prime crisis. I informed her that Obama had actually filed a law suit in the early ‘90s to get the government to lower lending standards at the behest of ACORN.
Then came the killer question from this young lady. She said, “Well, I’m sure that they did not foresee the sub-prime crisis while they worked in the early ‘90s and certainly they did not think their actions would bring down the economy. Is it possible they were just trying to help more people get homes?”
Was I wrong? Did I fall for the smears of the right and was Obama just merely someone seeking to help the poor? The first clue is in the question she asked: Is it really possible that they were just trying to help more people get homes? Many consider this goal to be a good one and few would be against it.
It is true that many people believe in redistribution because they genuinely want to help the poor or needy. Yet, this genuine hope to help the poor among the vast majority of citizens is the very reason that groups like ACORN gain undeserved trust and cause economic disasters. In my opinion most well-intentioned people have not thought carefully about the issue and don’t realize that they are being deceived by the notion that distribution of income actually does any good – for the economy or the poor. They are confusing desired intent with actual result. They think that if they approve of income redistribution, those politicians they vote for will accomplish the desired result – a fairer, more caring society. Yet, after decades and billions of social welfare dollars down the drain, there are more poor than ever in our society. Why is this so? What if income redistribution is actually harming the people whose resources are being used to obtain the intent – and harming the poor as well? What if they are violating the principle that makes a good civilization possible?
The principle of civilization holds that you cannot accomplish short-term results by sacrificing long-term social stability. A proper civilization can only be a value to an individual if there are no mechanisms for exploitation; if living in a civilization is an actual benefit for all individuals – in other words, the government protects the rights and property of all citizens equally. If any benefit for one individual requires coercion against another individual, then that act is improper and invalidates the civilization.
The appeal to pity is a method of deception used by re-distributors to engender concern about the plight of supposed victims. Certain low-income or no-income people are considered to be worthy of owning homes, even though they have earned low credit scores. They are considered to be victims of an economic system that demands they be good credit risks before they take out loans. This is supposedly the fault of a racist capitalist system; and the available statistics “prove” that this is true. It is irrelevant to the professional parasites at ACORN that these poor can not afford to pay for these homes. The lack of home ownership by the poor is a matter that needs to be fixed and the people who have put their savings into banks and mortgage companies are required to pay for the homes by means of high-risk adjustable rate mortgages that steal from their portfolios.
The problem for the idea of redistribution, and why it is evil, is that it demands sacrificial victims. The best must give up their earnings in order that the favored “victims” are able to survive. The lie in this scam is that the sacrifice is proper; worse is the idea that the sacrificial lamb should want to give up his/her life-blood to the collective. If the collective (represented by the government) demands it, who are they, mere individuals, to disagree?
Politicians have been propagandizing for centuries that self-sacrifice (redistribution) is a form of “caring” for others. By this scheme, it is a foregone conclusion that if a person "cares" for others, it means he is a good person as opposed to the person who dissents. Politicians, such as Obama in particular, are quick to declare that it is more important for the government to “care” about citizens rather than to defend and protect their rights and freedoms. He even considers that the Founding Fathers missed getting the Constitution right when they did not include a re-distribution power in the Constitition.
This view on Obama's part clearly expresses his view that a government is either "caring" (which means re-distributionist) or free (following the Constitution). This view clearly shows that Obama is an enemy of freedom. You can't have both individual rights and re-distribution in the same society. Eventually, individual rights will fall by the wayside.
The basic argument for sacrifice is that sacrifice is considered “good” by most people. This means that anything other than sacrifice is considered bad. For instance, when I question the imperative to sacrifice, in the opinion of most people, I am doing something bad. Forget that the economy has been destroyed and that there are now more unemployed and homeless suffering people as a result of the re-distributionist sub-prime crisis. Let me repeat this: the sub-prime crisis, as a redistribution scheme to benefit the poor, has created more unemployment and more poor people. Yet, my questioning it is an indication that I do not care for others.
The argument offered by Obama (the re-distributer) and ACORN (an organization engaged in voter fraud and bank extortion) is that this is the “will of the people”; but, properly, there should be no government authority to violate the rights of citizens – regardless of its desire to “care” for people. The idea of the government “caring” for people is the excuse that justifies tyranny.
To be continued
[1] “The Roots of ACORN
From a comprehensive and thoroughly researched piece by Stanley Kurtz in the National Review titled, Inside Obama's ACORN, we come to understand that ACORN has its roots in the anti-capitalist tenets of the 1960s radical left group the National Welfare Rights Organization. This groups' goal was to force a radical reconstruction of what they described as "America's unjust capitalist economy" by forcing the elimination of eligibility restrictions for those trying to attain inclusion on the welfare roles, thus creating an overloaded system, a crisis, so as to affect that reconstruction.
Over the years, ACORN morphed its mission into one that champions a diverse set of objectives, all with an overriding goal seated in the tenets of anti-capitalism and the destruction of the US economy. The group targets privately owned companies in their pursuit of unreasonably crafted municipal living wage laws that have literally driven said companies from the areas where jobs are needed. They continue their campaign to eliminate welfare role eligibility restrictions as they crusade to roll back welfare reform. And, in an area directly related to our subject, they actively employ coercive tactics to manipulate financial institutions into abandoning best business practice by affording low-interest loans to unqualified borrowers.” From http://www.rightsidenews.com/200810102189/culture-wars/obama-acorn-and-their-starring-role-in-the-mortgage-crisis.html
I pointed out that later the leaders of this group moved to Arkansas and started what is now ACORN, the organization that fraudulently registered voters for Obama and was instrumental in creating the sub-prime crisis. I informed her that Obama had actually filed a law suit in the early ‘90s to get the government to lower lending standards at the behest of ACORN.
Then came the killer question from this young lady. She said, “Well, I’m sure that they did not foresee the sub-prime crisis while they worked in the early ‘90s and certainly they did not think their actions would bring down the economy. Is it possible they were just trying to help more people get homes?”
Was I wrong? Did I fall for the smears of the right and was Obama just merely someone seeking to help the poor? The first clue is in the question she asked: Is it really possible that they were just trying to help more people get homes? Many consider this goal to be a good one and few would be against it.
It is true that many people believe in redistribution because they genuinely want to help the poor or needy. Yet, this genuine hope to help the poor among the vast majority of citizens is the very reason that groups like ACORN gain undeserved trust and cause economic disasters. In my opinion most well-intentioned people have not thought carefully about the issue and don’t realize that they are being deceived by the notion that distribution of income actually does any good – for the economy or the poor. They are confusing desired intent with actual result. They think that if they approve of income redistribution, those politicians they vote for will accomplish the desired result – a fairer, more caring society. Yet, after decades and billions of social welfare dollars down the drain, there are more poor than ever in our society. Why is this so? What if income redistribution is actually harming the people whose resources are being used to obtain the intent – and harming the poor as well? What if they are violating the principle that makes a good civilization possible?
The principle of civilization holds that you cannot accomplish short-term results by sacrificing long-term social stability. A proper civilization can only be a value to an individual if there are no mechanisms for exploitation; if living in a civilization is an actual benefit for all individuals – in other words, the government protects the rights and property of all citizens equally. If any benefit for one individual requires coercion against another individual, then that act is improper and invalidates the civilization.
The appeal to pity is a method of deception used by re-distributors to engender concern about the plight of supposed victims. Certain low-income or no-income people are considered to be worthy of owning homes, even though they have earned low credit scores. They are considered to be victims of an economic system that demands they be good credit risks before they take out loans. This is supposedly the fault of a racist capitalist system; and the available statistics “prove” that this is true. It is irrelevant to the professional parasites at ACORN that these poor can not afford to pay for these homes. The lack of home ownership by the poor is a matter that needs to be fixed and the people who have put their savings into banks and mortgage companies are required to pay for the homes by means of high-risk adjustable rate mortgages that steal from their portfolios.
The problem for the idea of redistribution, and why it is evil, is that it demands sacrificial victims. The best must give up their earnings in order that the favored “victims” are able to survive. The lie in this scam is that the sacrifice is proper; worse is the idea that the sacrificial lamb should want to give up his/her life-blood to the collective. If the collective (represented by the government) demands it, who are they, mere individuals, to disagree?
Politicians have been propagandizing for centuries that self-sacrifice (redistribution) is a form of “caring” for others. By this scheme, it is a foregone conclusion that if a person "cares" for others, it means he is a good person as opposed to the person who dissents. Politicians, such as Obama in particular, are quick to declare that it is more important for the government to “care” about citizens rather than to defend and protect their rights and freedoms. He even considers that the Founding Fathers missed getting the Constitution right when they did not include a re-distribution power in the Constitition.
This view on Obama's part clearly expresses his view that a government is either "caring" (which means re-distributionist) or free (following the Constitution). This view clearly shows that Obama is an enemy of freedom. You can't have both individual rights and re-distribution in the same society. Eventually, individual rights will fall by the wayside.
The basic argument for sacrifice is that sacrifice is considered “good” by most people. This means that anything other than sacrifice is considered bad. For instance, when I question the imperative to sacrifice, in the opinion of most people, I am doing something bad. Forget that the economy has been destroyed and that there are now more unemployed and homeless suffering people as a result of the re-distributionist sub-prime crisis. Let me repeat this: the sub-prime crisis, as a redistribution scheme to benefit the poor, has created more unemployment and more poor people. Yet, my questioning it is an indication that I do not care for others.
The argument offered by Obama (the re-distributer) and ACORN (an organization engaged in voter fraud and bank extortion) is that this is the “will of the people”; but, properly, there should be no government authority to violate the rights of citizens – regardless of its desire to “care” for people. The idea of the government “caring” for people is the excuse that justifies tyranny.
To be continued
[1] “The Roots of ACORN
From a comprehensive and thoroughly researched piece by Stanley Kurtz in the National Review titled, Inside Obama's ACORN, we come to understand that ACORN has its roots in the anti-capitalist tenets of the 1960s radical left group the National Welfare Rights Organization. This groups' goal was to force a radical reconstruction of what they described as "America's unjust capitalist economy" by forcing the elimination of eligibility restrictions for those trying to attain inclusion on the welfare roles, thus creating an overloaded system, a crisis, so as to affect that reconstruction.
Over the years, ACORN morphed its mission into one that champions a diverse set of objectives, all with an overriding goal seated in the tenets of anti-capitalism and the destruction of the US economy. The group targets privately owned companies in their pursuit of unreasonably crafted municipal living wage laws that have literally driven said companies from the areas where jobs are needed. They continue their campaign to eliminate welfare role eligibility restrictions as they crusade to roll back welfare reform. And, in an area directly related to our subject, they actively employ coercive tactics to manipulate financial institutions into abandoning best business practice by affording low-interest loans to unqualified borrowers.” From http://www.rightsidenews.com/200810102189/culture-wars/obama-acorn-and-their-starring-role-in-the-mortgage-crisis.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)