Rules for Radicals is a book by Saul Alinsky, a guide for people trying to institute change, this is part of my pieces on methods of control. Essentially this book aims to help "the revolution" through cheap tricks. It's like The Art of War but for political upheaval. To use the same Einstein quote again "in a debate there is a thesis and antithesis, when successful the outcome is a synthesis", this book discourages that. The name using "radicals" makes the indoctrinated feel special, part of a group that are the only ones who understand them.
"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.
It's innocent enough and good advice on the front but it instills the us and them mindset encouraging aggressive behaviour with "build power from flesh and blood", there is no us and them just individuals. Some who think a like but none think the same.
"Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
This is essentially, 'pick your battles' but going outside your expertise is how you learn. It also stops the "radical" from seeing things from the opponents point of view and potentially stops them understanding why they're wrong. This seems cultish disconnecting the indoctrinated from anything that will veer them away from being controlled.
"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
A fairly simple attack method, similar to what I mentioned talking about cults but this stops the opposing sides from reaching a common ground managing the us and them mentality. This stops the synthesis of ideas forming.
"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 diversion tactic, wasting resources is as greedy as hoarding them. It does nothing but divert the opponent and hinders development.
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defence. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
Childishness, to get Machiavellian the sooner one has to resort to insults and shouting the less validity their argument has. It also diverts from actually discussing the issues or topics, distracting the "radical" from opposing views and makes them afraid of being ridiculed, keeping the indoctrinated on side and not questioning what they're doing.
"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.
Back to my cult piece, this is a method of indoctrination and control to stop people questioning what they're doing, no one wants to be the one ruining the fun and be ostracised from the group.
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news.
No one wants old news, seems fair enough but this stops people being able to formulate reasonable arguments against you and stops the indoctrinated from realising what they're doing might be wrong.
"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.
Another one to inhibit discourse and to stop people from coming to an agreement, there will be no peace with tactics like this.
"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
If people are afraid of you they won't question you, then you can get away with anything.
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
Keep them under pressure and they'll fuck up. Giving the "radical" the opportunity to cease control.
"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 sympathises with the underdog.
Play the victim and you'll get bwahs, this isn't development or bettering society it's simple manipulation. No good will come if it and when people realise what you're doing, it'll lose you more than it gained.
"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.
More blocking of development and a synthesis of ideas.
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalise it, and polarise 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 just dirty tricks, classic Ad Hominem and alienates those in opposition. This is best highlighted in the modern left calling ask those that oppose them fascist or Nazis regardless of their actual politics.
This all seems to be a way to create Lenins 'useful idiots', destabilising one authoritarian system to replace it with another. It also seems to be more about keeping the indoctrinated on your side. A truly developed society cannot be forced by the will of a few but one that facilitates the freedom and liberty of all individuals. Rules for radicals encourages an aggressive take over without regard to the wants and needs of all people, with its cultish methodology those involved will not realise what they've done or who they've done it for until it's too late.
Like with all my methods of control I write this to highlight how we are manipulated and controlled, the more aware of these you are the more in control of your own life you are.
Full disclosure I have used these in a business environment, often with those unwilling to improve but as a last resort to drive Kaizen when speaking to them reasonably has failed. It's a real, "I can wash but never be clean" situation for me. I have great concern for those who use these methods without remorse.
No comments:
Post a Comment