Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Why We Have To Do It Better.

We've heard a lot about these "rules for radicals", but most of us don't know what they are, or know why it is so important to know what they are. Well, the super-quick-down-and-dirty version of them is this:

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.

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.)

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

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. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

Now, why is this so important to know these rules? Well, in football, if you can get the opposing teams playbook, you have a significant advantage. These rules are the Left's playbook. This is the "why and how" of what they do when the single out and attack people like Palin, Bush, the Tea Party...  

But by knowing these rules, and understanding how OUR actions are going to be perceived and manipulated with these gives us on the right the advantage by not playing into their hands. More on that later, for now I just want you to study these rules.


  1. I don't think it's just the left that plays by these rules. Come to think of it, don't extremists abhor any set of rules, period? Depending on the group, isn't anarchy, confusion, fear, uncertainty, doubt, dogs and cats living together one of the goals?

    That being said, a few thoughts on said rules:

    4. "Make them live by their own rules." I'd believe this tactic more if each side didn't keep coming up with ways to worm out of their own rules.

    5. "It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule." -- unless the ridiculer is acting ridiculous, which sorta defeats the point.

    6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." In other words, if it feels good, do it... heh, a lotta help *THAT* advice has been over the years.

    7. "A tactic that drags on too long can become a drag." I don't know about you, but all the shouting at town halls became a drag weeks ago.

    9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Not always, unless you're carrying a hydrogen bomb or a hand grenade.

    11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through to its counterside... every positive has its negative." Examples? A negative is still a negative. I can't see it flipping polarity like some battery with an identity crisis.

    12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Hear hear. Where's the constructive alternatives in the health care debate and why aren't we hearing enough of them. (Please don't blame the media. See number 7 above.)

    13. "Pick the target... " May I add the word "right" into that sentence? All labor is for naught if you're shooting in the wrong direction.

  2. Extremists do... I am not an extremist. I only call myself that because the MSM has attached that label to us. I take it on to show that the use of "names" does not phase me in the least. Years ago, it would, they are like ribbons on my vest.

    That said, I like your analysis... the whole point of posting this is to help those on the right that have never "put their toes in the political waters" have a chance to see who their opponent is.

    4. They worm out of their rules because they are being forced to live up to them. Both sides, and yes I did say both sides...this is why it IS an effective rule of engagement.

    5. Or, if like I said above...the ridiculed don't see it as ridicule, but instead see it as a 'badge of honor'

    6. Yup. I don't like it (being raised in a Christian household), but those that have been raised with little or no moral code? yeah...

    7. That's why we aren't shouting at town halls anymore... Yes, we go and sit there in our 'teaparty' shirts...just to remind them that we are watching them... but what our next step is? Well...we are exploring that. BTW, the 'Nazi lady' at the townhall? A Democrat - why didn't we hear about that?

    9. Sometimes yes, sometimes no... Personally, until the gun is pointed at me...doesn't mean anything.

    11. Interesting - this one can be seen in two ways... from a right/wrong perspective or a opportunity cost perspective. From a right/wrong - well, if you are on the side of right, you are on the side of right. However, if it is an opportunity cost issue - say you have 10 bucks in your pocket. Homeless guy on corner. You could keep it and use it to put gas in the car (and make it to payday), or you could give it to the homeless guy and hope you make it to payday. There is no right or wrong in that instance, but either way there is a negative. You either hurt yourself and get seen as someone who can't manage their money, or you are seen as a mean person who can't give to charity.

    12. Yup, and I wish there was something better...but why can't taking our time and doing it right be a constructive alternative? Or listening to all constituents? But there are other options out there. DeMint has one, there is Tort Reform. Cross-state Insurance. (now don't go the route of merely calling these talking points - that's rule 13 - polarizing it through a label)

    13. I agree...wrong target, wrong timing (rifle guy in Phx is example), wrong location, etc... and all you do is make more enemies, rather than friends. Agree whole heartily!