Rules for Radicals

Saul Alinsky is recognized as the modern father of progressive communications and political strategy.

Alinsky was pure evil and no one here condones what he has done and/or the damage he has caused. Alinsky dedicated his book to the Satan, so he was quite up front about which side he was on.

“Forget moral or ethical considerations… The end is what you want, the means is how you get it” – Saul Alinsky

People need to be aware of Alinsky’s tactics, how to recognize them and how to counter them. Some of his methods are nothing but ‘political technology’ and can be used for good. The Leadership Institute is putting together a series of videos to explain how conservative students can put some of this ‘political technology’ to work for them because on campus opposing leftist indoctrination makes YOU the radical.

Dedication: Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer. – Saul Alinsky

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

More here –


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.)

More details here:


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.)

More details here:

3 thoughts on “Rules for Radicals”

  1. Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
    That’s interesting because, while clicking thru the comments on many of the articles here, I noticed that every response from an editor to a comment which questioned your convictions included some form of ridicule.

    PoliticalArena Editor responds:

    Ridicule can be a part of a legitimate response as long as it is accompanied by a substantive answer; and it is even more effective when it includes with it facts that are verifiable.

    For many leftists, including many of the no substance hate screeds that you post that I don’t allow passed moderation, all they post is ridicule. And once again you are trying to make a moral equivalency when there is none.

  2. Show me one comment of mine which included ridicule. You can’t because I don’t need to use ridicule to counter your rightwing arguments. Why have you not posted my comment on “If I wanted America to fail?” It’s all logic and historical fact. Do you decide which posts get past moderation based on whether or not you agree with them? What kind of forum would do that? If you aren’t going to post my comments, I’ll quit wasting my time and leave you to be alone with only those who agree with you and compliment you.

    PoliticalArena Editor Responds:

    Comments that are just hate screeds do not get passed moderation. This is PoliticalArena, not junior high school. Anyone is welcome to disagree, but they have to make an argument that includes substance, preferably with something verifiable. We tried unmoderating comments and people like you would come in and post the most disgusting things possible in an effort to drive away readers.

    Here is a sample of your “All logic and historical fact” from one of your hate screeds that I did not allow passed moderation. QUOTE:

    You can’t possibly be so myopic that you don’t know that the price of gas plummeted, starting in the fall of 2008, as a result of the global economic meltdown. Therefore, you must be trying to deceive the number of current food stamp recipients, welfare recipients… END QUOTE.

    Nope no ridicule there!!! /sarcasm OFF. So much for you saying that I can’t come up with an example, and there are more examples than that so who do you think you’re kidding?

    Make real arguments, preferably with evidence we all can verify, or don’t bother. Internet trolls are plentiful so in that regard you are not special. If you want to talk about gas prices too that is fine, but when evidence that is verifiable is included it helps advance the conversation. If you went to public schools you may not be aware of what verifiable evidence looks like, so I am providing you with this example:

    Here is Obama’s Energy Secretary Chu telling to Congress that “We have low gas prices” in February 2012. Remember that Secretary Chu has said repeatedly that it is the view of the administration that gas prices are low. Once he even said under oath that gas prices should be around $8.00 a gallon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

“If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X

%d bloggers like this: