Rules for Radicals - the Paul Campaign, Pt.1

Alinsky's Rules

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long is a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize and polarize it.
    
    
    The Paul campaigns have demonstrated rule one consistently. His whole career has been major bogey to the neo-cons even before they existed. Fortunes have been spent trying to dislodge him from congress, trying everything including star-power (if memory serves it was the wife of Frank Sinatra Jr., haha, losers all.) It only served to bring him even more attention and support. First, they did not ignore him or ridicule him (contra the popular saying), but went straight to Orange alert. They were afraid when his "power" was infinitesimal - It became what they thought he had, and they couldn't really ratchet up from their initial shock-and-awe, which had always worked before. His power came from his enemies. For comparison, note how Marilyn Manson based his whole career on free advertising from the Christians.
    Never go outside the experience of your people. I'm not sure what Alinsky was getting at here, other than that even a relatively unsophisticated audience senses bullshit when they are talked down to, or up to. Don't try to bedazzle or impress your supporters. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. This has been simple for Paul, because the enemy lives in it's own dialectic bubble; almost everything that has been excluded for so long, is outside of their experience. They know only pragmatism and are generally incapable of considering anything else, lest they be thought of as "nut", "naive", "idealistic", etc. It bothers them though, because they must use ideals to justify their pragmatism to the public. They can't quite square the circle; they know there might be an unguarded ventilation duct in their invincible battlestar.
    
    
    Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. It can't be done, of course, since the rules are written to give them advantage. What can be done, and the Paul campaigns have done brilliantly, is to show the postmodern traits of the elite - complete disregard for facts, constant appeals to emotion, selective justice, no punishment for failure or fraud, outright lies, coverups, entrapment, (among many others), and done almost completely in the open. Never mind what we don't see. Obviously, this has been going on through history, but how long has it been this blatant? The sheer mass would have been to large to cover at some point, they may have had to quit trying, marginal returns and whatnot, but Ron Paul has been drawing attention to the gaps, for just about the same time as the neo-cons have been saying yeahsowhatayagonnadoaboutit. Not coincidentally.
    
    
    Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.  Here I disagree, at least with respect to the Paul campaign. There was never a need to ridicule anyone whose open behavior is Clinton/Bush level ridiculous; it is merely necessary to point out a few of many, many clusterfucks and leave the ridicule to lesser men like yrs tru'ly. They(the ridiculous asshats) have damned themselves with their own words and deeds to a sort of purgatory of ridicule where their names are only mentioned by the impolite or quietly amongst the dupes: Clinton, Rich, Bush, Cheney. Rice, Wolfowitz, Kagan, McCain, Lieberman, Graham... stop me anytime. Meanwhile, there above the shitstorm, stands Ron Paul, like a stone wall. Ridicule may have been a more potent weapon when more people had consciences. Today, not so much. The low point may be booing a guy for bringing up the golden rule outside of church. Self-ridicule; the most sincere. I might say ridicule is a potent weapon when used sparingly. Nobody likes a snotty wise guy, believe me; I know some guys like that.
    A good tactic is one your people enjoy.  Ron Paul all the way. I enjoyed seeing him win elections despite landslide opposition. Everyone loved the '08 campaign; blimps, unheard of internet support and grassroots workers coming from everywhere, 6 million dollar moneybombs, winning every poll opened, the original tea-party. All new, fresh and exciting. Fear and loathing from the gravytrainers. The look on Romney's and Hannity's faces after the debates when the straw poll votes were announced - Mitt was astounded, Sean pissed. Priceless. The entire Republican primary has been about stopping Ron Paul, and without him, would have been less interesting than major-league baseball. I'll bet I'll even enjoy the end-game and convention, even though I know they're going to throw the christian to the lions.
    
    I read somewhere that there exist a certain breed of political activist that simply enjoy crushing bastards, that donate out of chumped, self-defensive spite and malice and long to see some clowns take a faceplant, and there's more every day. Country will grow.
    
    
    Next installment: A tactic that drags on too long is a drag.

Rules for Radical...Paleos?

The Daily Bell and Lew Rockwell have recently featured articles about Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals. I had been only vaguely aware of Alinsky, because I knew him to be a man of the left; best ignored, even when they have something of value to say, because of a profound distrust of their  motives. It's properly conservative to realize that the Situation, however grim can always get worse. What I have come to share with the radicals is the belief that it has to get worse to get better.  "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side". The pendulum needs to complete its swing, whether they speak of "historical inevitability", or we of economic cycles. Few would argue that we need to move farther away from individual freedom and decentralized economies, although the trend will continue. We can sense that the momentum is fading to stasis, the tipping point where the pendulum reverses, and remember that the acceleration at apogee  is almost imperceptible in both directions. We will not recognize the point in real time, but we will have to change tactics as dynamics change. Think of sailing by utilizing wind and currents to best advantage. Think racing yacht and crew. Forget the furschluginer pendulum analogy, (except the momentum bits, still pretty proud of them), unless I can think of what might substitute for the constant of gravity; I'm thinking greed/opportunity, might involve calculus. It only seems like clockwork. Wind, weather and currents and tides; that's the ticket. Longitude, bollocks. Vikings didn't need no stinkin longitudes.

"What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

In a recent post, How To Gum Up Any Institution, Gary North introduces the Remnant to Saul Alinsky, previously known by me only as a communist agitator, community organizer and general bad guy. The article is devoted to Alinsky's method of turning beaureaucratic rules against the beaureaucrats themselves and prevailing. Cool stories, but I remain skeptical, given that the average american, say IRS agent, could probably instruct gulag prison guards on cruelty and stupidity, but I was bowled over by North's by Alinsky's 13 rules;

We can learn from Alinsky. We must learn how to gum up the works. We must create a new, hypothetical society, "Gummit," which sounds a lot like "Guvmint."
Here are Alinsky's 13 tactical rules:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long is a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize and polarize it.

CONCLUSION
Every system can be brought down. Every system is vulnerable. If you can spot the weak point in the system, you can exploit it. 

Looks like Ron Paul's to do list. It's amazing how close he has kept to it. 

Final Thoughts on the District Convention

I attended mainly to support Ron Paul and secondly to witness the reaction. This largely confirmed my original notions that this Republican primary has been all about beating Ron Paul. That's why they ran the seven dwarves, desperate to find a non-romney, non-paul. One by one, they "took one for the team" and showed the inevitability of the Presumptive Romany. But the presumptive romany has one hand tied - he is unable to mention any position on any real issue, because at some point in the past he has said the exact opposite. So, he must run an issueless campaign against Paul. and lo, he is winning. It turned out to be a good strategy against Paul; he intends to use the same against Obama, and he will fail, because the press doesn't have to pretend that there is no Obama, To further confirm this theory. I got a four-page fund-raising letter from Romney, asking me several times to donate, that never mentioned policy at all; just that we need to defeat Obama and Obama care.

Running against Obama will lose, and that's all they got. I'm sure he doesn't care that he's taking the noble loser role from thomas dewey, gerald ford, bob dole and john mccain. Both parties have shown total consistency on squelching reform, all the way down to the district level, and there is no shortage of those "taking one for the team". It is completely obvious that both Parties are happy to take turns drinking deeply of the sweet river of taxpayer honey. Whatever it takes to divert attention from anyone who may possibly threaten it.

Paul Gottfried;
"Nisbet said that what he called the “sociological tradition” owed a great deal to conservative critics of the French Revolution. These enemies of progress had analyzed the value of hierarchical relations and the link between community and custom. But Nisbet, who was an old-fashioned Taft Republican in American politics, did not believe this conservative legacy was alive and well in the US. And it wouldn’t seem from anything he wrote that he thought that either the conservative or traditional liberal legacy had much to do with the American present.

One can learn from Nisbet’s work on conservatism more than one ever could from the made-to-order GOP polemics that pour out of the Rupert Murdoch empire. One does not draw significant ideological distinctions by accusing the Democrats of not playing fair in the communal sandbox. Getting paid for throwing back sand at the other toddlers is a nice gig but hardly a scholarly activity.

I am amused to learn that Democratic sociologists imagine that Republicans are suffering from some mental disorder. I had hitherto assumed that Republicans were people addicted to zombie-like centrist presidential candidates, all of them resembling Bob Dole. Perhaps the “psychopundits” have something to teach us after all."

So no. I wouldn't try to work for anything within the formal party; it is carefully constructed and tended to promote and perpetrate various frauds on it's own members and the taxpayers, and would be destroyed if it ever really threatened the gravy train. I could see some possibility of success outside of this area where the entire economy is directly or indirectly based on Federal spending. Bushco wrecked the Republican party; it is now the rump opposition to the Great Society, stuck forever lost somewhere in Viraq-namistan, cursing hippies.

Can you "work within" the borg? If the Republican party were reformed completely along favorable lines, and became an effective force for good, it would then, be somehow bent back to serve the insiders, or negated. The convention is the last chance to prove loyalty and crush the Paultards. Will they sacrifice everything else? Bill Kristol assures us they will, and I believe him. It's just a shameful irony that after all Dr. Paul's work and our money spent, the next president will be Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul really was your last chance, Americans. You blew it. Now chew it.

Misc. posts, pt.2 - the Good

I've covered the bad and the ugly; here it like to be as positive as possible. The crowd was beautiful, completely diverse despite being about 99% white. Otherwise, every shape, size, age, sex, and yes, class, represented, in a cheerful and co-operative mood, much like a party as opposed to Party. I was expecting tension, drama, and confrontation; didn't see any. One spunky older dame got up and told slightly blue jokes. Irony piling up against innocence and rolling over on sentiment and nostalgia. Wonderful. I wish I knew her, wife of some potentate, I assumed.

The candidates that spoke were mostly convincing and effective, with the exception of George Allen, who has exhausted his schtick after long use, and seems to running on inertia alone. He's too good, a brand now, and doesn't have to try very hard. Lost momentum, stuck in low orbit. The deja-vu would kill me; I would start to dislike and despise the muppets, make mistakes. He'll win the primary, though. Tall, good-looking rich guy with a famous father, proven success, a made man. Another "presumptive" nominee, God curse them all! Whoops, sorry; trying to be positive, but while I'm at it, two words I never heard mentioned were bush and romney. The dogs that didn't bark, as 'twere.

I'm a Bob Marshall "fan", for reasons I won't bore you with - essentially he's a real conservative, but he is actually effective, focused and committed, and has done some real good things; so naturally he is considered a potentially dangerous loose cannon by the insiders (the only one I actually know pronounced him "kind of a nut"; thus are a thousand campaigns scuttled) and won't be supported. The Senate is their sanctum sanctorum - "None shall enter with unbrowned lips". Possible exception, Rand Paul, that proves the rule.

 I had never heard of or about E.W.Jackson before, but Wow. actually double wow after I found out more, but the speech easily won on style (off the charts) and content. The only person to mention the U.N., for instance. The insiders should be swarming this guy - marine, harvard law, businessman, minister (well-known evidently; one of the school employees who was talking to him in the parking lot asked him if he were known as "the bishop", which Jackson affirmed.) Talk about outreach. Black conservative influential church-goers; the remnant, natural small-r republicans. If Marshall weren't running, I'd back him, even if he turned out to be a neo-con tool. What's one more out of 98? Allen and the faceless Democrat, whose name escapes me for good reasons, are anyway, so what's to lose?

I talked a bit to Mr.Wear, before and after the vote. I said that I wished I had paid the full toll so I could vote for him, and after he seemed to listen to my concerns about the huge numbers of kids graduating into the current non-economy, and this could be easily tied into his ethnic (futile attempt, whoops again) outreach project. "A (for instance but not exclusively) young americanised asian engineer with a private-sector job is Republican; with a government job, a Democrat; unemployed, a libertarian, often a very effective libertarian." Plus they may be able to explain to their parents why they should take time out of their 14 hour workday to try to vote for someone to allow/help them to run their business and pay their taxes. A smart guy could put together some pieces to build the party. Another kind of smart guy could try to build the party by scaring the muppets some more, but even they must see that it's wearing thin.

That concludes the sunny part. If it keeps raining, I hope to outline opportunities. Short version - few.

Type text or a website address or translate a document.

Cancel

WOOF - White,Old, Overweight and Frightened

I held my nose and waded into the Virginia Republican 11th District convention yesterday to support the Ron Paul delegates to the National convention (two were running, one was elected). The only surprise for me was how many Paul supporters were in attendance, as Fairfax county, being one of Mordor's bedrooms, may be one of the least freedom-friendly venues in the U.S. The overall theme was probably Cognitive Dissidence on Parade, with detectable overtones of fear and loathing, kicked up a notch with smug self-satisfaction and sublime hints of nostalgia and wishful thinking.

Overall, the 2012 candidates from dog-catcher to President, are running against Obama. Not his policies, because those are virtually identical to those of Bush, Jr. (a personage completely unmentioned, yet whose presence hung over the affair like the Holy Ghost). Barack HUSSAIN! Obama, is not only the Worst President Ever, but also the Worst Guy Ever, who, aided by the LIBERALS! is DESTROYING the Economy and the Country and Perverting such of our Youth who are unABORTED only by the grace of God and the constant vigilance of our good Republican Women of both sexes. Also, SACRED Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, although divorce and serial marriage are evidently okay for those that can afford it, or at least not spoken of. The sole purpose of Government is to provide Security and a STRONG DEFENSE. Never forget that OBAMACARE will destroy the greatest Health Care System in History and send us all in pain to an early death. Also, Republicans should Reach Out to Minorities, especially Asians who are much like us and struggling to raise their children in a godless, business-unfriendly environment, probably because of OBAMA. Nary a mention of the Banks, TARP, bailouts, Foreign Aid, subsidies, Federalism, the Bill of Rights, the FED, Waste Fraud and Abuse, or really anything else of substance. On the credit side there was no mention of Romney, the Aunt in the attic. Hence, the cognitive dissidence. Because I was under cover in a suit with a fresh haircut and no RP regalia, I did hear some mutterings about "those Ron Paul People", hence, the fear and loathing. I love it!

To be clear, I am white, (kind of) old, (slightly) overweight guy, and I agree with much of this, except that I don't give a rat's ass about Obama, abortion, health care or marriage, gay or otherwise. The Democrats really do suck. These things are not of concern to free people. We can take care of ourselves and families if we want to, and in fact we must, because no one else can or will, even if they want to, because we are beyond broke. That parrot is dead; has gone to the choir celestial, it has ceased to be. Some mention was made of this fact in passing, but the speaker was roundly booed (and will probably lose the primary) for mentioning that the problem is of long standing and bipartisan agreement. Nope - it is the fault of OBAMA and the LIBERALS. I love the old Republicans, God bless their dotty heads, and I'm drawn to the nuttier types - one old guy had a voters' guide that excoriated one candidate for being a "free-mason". As a Jacobite, I'm glad to see the old gods still walk the land, however unacknowledged. D____d Quakers and Jesuits. Ha! [I'm halfway through Mason and Dixon, by the demi-god Thomas Pynchon (highly recommended), and I'm starting to think and write 18th century, which seems like a paradise, (except maybe for the filth, disease, murder and republicanism - some things never change.) compared to the present age of stupidity. Long live the Stewarts!

I would like to say a few words about the younger "conservatives" in their huge suits and sour demeanor. The guys with the lexus SUVs and the pretty wives; Santorum supporters probably, you know the type. A little advice, if I may; knock off the carbs, turn off the TV, and for God's sake, get to the gym. If you can, crack a book or two. Then go fuck yourself. Chumps.

Grandpa out...

Ron and Rom; Ain't Nothin' but a Thang

This persistent phony meme that Paul and Romney are somehow teaming up is fairly risible, and probably motivated by the idea that Romney may be more naive than overtly evil like Sant and Ging, but I'm doubtful that a second generation insider Governor is going to be so clueless. It's more likely that he's just better than the other two liars in lying convincingly, and the Mormon thing makes it easier to believe in true lies. I would be very surprised if Ron were to play ball with this lightweight, after thirty or so years of non-compromise. Rand, now, I'm not so sure.

(Oh, yeah, thanks a lot Ted! Now I REALLY don't believe you never did drugs! Look at that SE grin and squinty eyes. Now you can go hunting with the Mittster. Tip - wear orange and stay behind him.)

I just came from a discussion of this topic over at Infowars, (yeah, I know, I know...) Ron Paul Warming To Potential VP Slot?, but even in that rarified atmosphere most of the commenters were keeping good faith with Ron. Rand remains a known unknown, however, and even though I have, and continue, to support him, I was somewhat dismayed to be informed in his weekly newletter that -

"Americans Previously Detained In Egypt Released

It was reported this week that the Egyptian government lifted the travel ban on the remaining Americans being prosecuted for their association with pro-democracy nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

Over the past several weeks, I have worked tirelessly to bring attention to the unjust actions of the Egyptian government, and I insisted that my colleagues in the Senate debate, consider, and vote on my amendment to deny Egypt any U.S. foreign aid unless they ended their attempt to prosecute these Americans. Now that Egypt has begun to relent, it is clear that the growing pressure on Egypt from the U.S. government - including from Congress - was a factor in their decision.

It was later confirmed that a plane carrying the previously detained American pro-democracy workers left Egypt on Thursday. It brings me great relief to know the brave American pro-democracy workers in Egypt are safely returning home to the U.S. Their safe return brings closure to this ordeal."

I don't know what he's up to here, but I don't like it. (Personally I was hoping the Egyptians would hang the bastards, but I admit to being somewhat immature.) I have complete faith in Ron, but methinks Rand may be "growing into" acceptance by the PTB. " brave American pro-democracy workers".  Say what?  I hope Rand knows what he's doing. Maybe he does, but if you lay down with the dogs, don't be surprised when you start itching.

RT просто здравый смысл

Growing up in the 50's. ducking under my desk, watching Khrushchev pounding his shoe at the UN, waiting for the inevitable mushroom cloud; ah, memories, pressed between the pages of my mind. No wonder it's still disconcerting to find more actual news and "truthiness" in the english versions of the Russian press than in the entire American MSM. It may be propaganda, holding up our hypocrisy and lies for geopolitical gain, but our resistance to the truth is so strong that I'm very thankful that RT provides the opportunity to see ourselves as most of the world surely must; naked, fat and ugly.

I've been meaning to write something about lying liars and the lies they spin, but I haven't figured out yet how to approach the subject, or get my mind around it. It's so vast and woven into the fabric of our lives, it's like writing about concrete or air, and you don't really want to tug on the loose thread that may hold the whole jacket together. I still intend to try, but I'm afraid it's just too big a task, like straightening out my Itunes libraries, and probably can't be done. One suspects the world is all illusion and lying is the way we try to make sense of our place in it, not only but especially politicians, WTEORP - with the exception of Ron Paul, the exception that proves the rule, the only politician to tell us the huge hairy wart on our lip is not a beauty mark, but likely melanoma. He IS a doctor, you know.

without further ado...

Doug Wead in RT - Ron Paul just makes good sense

"I like George Smiley, the old spy in the John LeCarre trilogy. He had to be called back to save the situation. That’s kinda how I see Congressman Ron Paul. If there was someone younger who was right on the issues, we wouldn’t need to bother him, but sorry, Ron, you are needed once again. Come back and save your country."

Counterpunch - Ron Paul: More Progressive Than Obama?

Charles Davis on Counterpunch

Wow!  My eyes are still bugging out a bit after reading that on Counterpunch, which I generally read for its excellent Power Elite analysis (and disregard for it's naive "progressivism").

Paul has stated repeatedly that his campaigns are primarily educational and, with a lot of help from the continuing economic disaster, has been wildly successful in taking his ideas to the general public. His greatest impact (so far) has been to expose the Elite's own contradictions and incoherence against itself, as in his performance in the last Republican primary and especially the debates. He exposed the other candidates as the lying hypocrites and moral midgets they are, and is perfectly poised to do it again.

I can't see the PTB letting him anywhere near the Presidency, so the left should really hold off on the hysterical screaming about racism, Ayn Rand, etc. at least until he's through spanking the people's true enemies - neocons, "Christian" warmongers, banksters, jailers and fascists. Personally, because I detest Republicans, I want to see him run third party. I'm very dubious, but Paul thinks the system can be reformed, or restored. People of good will should get behind him.

I've never been exposed to Davis before, my knee-jerk reaction to "progressivism" has created a huge blind spot on that side of my thinking, I admit. His blog "false dichotomy by charles davis" has been running since 2004, so I've got some catching up to do. Some libertarians have been hoping to make common cause with the non-totalitarian left for quite a while. Hope springs eternal...

Anybody Here Seen my Good Friends Alex, Woody, Tom, and Andy?

I just look 'round,, and they're gone.

(Using Anti-war comments section as my default editor.) Justin was discussing "Paulites" v. "Palinites", in view of Walter Mead's typology of Hamiltonians, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonians. Briefly, Paul is a Jeffersonian and Palin a Jacksonian. A little bit of square peg, round hole, but a good rough fit. Justin discusses it as a schism within the tea party, but I don't consider Ron Paul as a TP at all and most TPrs probably don't consider him a member. It's pretty obvious that, while they have taken some of his essence and momentum and re-branded and adulterated it for their own purposes, they haven't moved him any closer to the spider's web, which is why they are trying to move the web towards him.

The consistency and integrity remain his, however selectively his ideas are cribbed. It's only important because Obama has temporarily captured the H's and W's at a time when only the Jeff's haven't been badly discredited. I predict that the eventual Rep nominee will sound very Jeffersonian, because of Ron Paul, whether he runs or not. I hope he does run, in order to maximize his message, but I wouldn't care to see him run as a sacrificial goat; a set up, without elite support, to lose against Obama and discredit Jeffersonianism as "impractical". It would be nice to think the electorate could see through the bullshit that would be piled against him. It would be nice if Santa had ever given me a dirt bike.*
*Hey, Santa, sorry I implied that you were less real than Elite Support. How about that dirt bike?

Can anyone  explain why  Judge Napolitano is featuring well-known scoundrels, e.g. Rumsfeld, Judith Miller (twice!), Bolton, Allen West (to be fair, he's not a first-tier warmonger like the others)? My first reaction is that this is somehow a rehabilitation of the neo-con stooges, but Napolitano is respectfully confrontational and their answers are, of course, ambiguous denials and evasions.

Thus my anti-thesis is that rather than making/showing the libertarian right as more accepting of the Jacksonian  jackasses, it's rather that the judge is showing them that if they behave we'll not dwell on the past and let their talking points expire. No harm, no foul?

The show itself is awesome and 100% Paulian, which is why it seems strange having these chumps on at all. Any true Scottsman would know they were liars, and we already know the lies, so what is the purpose of making me throw things at my tv? It's particularly strange that the show is even allowed to air except as a trial balloon to get as many libertarians as possible onside against Obama, especially if Obama wins, they can say it's because we were "too extreme". (after 2012, we can go back to packing sand, in any case). Luv the show; can't quite figure the angle.