Within this book are the tactics used by the leftists to get them where they are today...

Because they're about sociological and psychological manipulation which can be used by anyone for anything.

You'd be retarded not to outJew the Jews. Especially since a lot of the time, they're not even good at their Jewing.

Attached: HAHAHAMYFRIEND.jpg (200x205, 10K)

This has nothing at all to do with Alinsky.
Have any of you even read the fucking book?

Please read that again. His book is what inspired to push for the things listed in that image

Got news for you OP, Trump won the election largely by using tactics straight out of this book. It's one reason he irritates the left so much, it's the same stuff they've been doing to the right for years.

If Alinsky tactics worked Jow Forums wouldn't exist. You posting on this board and Trump getting elected even AFTER that 2014 era when SJWs made great gains is proof that while somewhat effective they ultimately fail.

Instead of resorting to kike tactics to win you should be resorting to Trump tactics. Say whatever you want whenever you want and mock the shit out of people for acting like faggots.

We should use their tactics against them. Most people are goo lazy and don't want to be bothered. That's why we are losing every battle

>Trump won the election largely by using tactics straight out of this book
No he didn't. He wrote his own book and so should everyone else. Don't copy others. Make your own path.

Do you think it is worth reading to know your enemy?

>why read and study? Be a dumb fuck and don't understand your enemy or how to destroy them at their own game

Hate to tell you this, but Art of the Deal was largely plagiarized from a classic investing book from the 1930s. And I hold nothing against Trump for that, it just means he's smart to have used a lot of stuff from the classics in his medium. Just like how subversive his election was, using classics from that medium.

I would like to read his book as well. I prefer being out and open with politics over shady shifty jewery. But at the same time I want to know how they think so I can help defeat them.

Attached: alinsky1.jpg (600x419, 97K)

That cherry Coke nostalgia

we already are using it against them and it's freaking them the fuck out

Hillary Clinton literally based her college thesis and the body of her work in college around Alinskyism. How sweet it is for her to be destroyed by it.

That brings up another point. If you adopt somebodies tactics you don't "defeat" them. You BECOME one of them. Do you really support the right becoming a group of whiny faggots protesting hate speech because somebody said something that offended your morality?

That tactic doesn't end in the left being shut up. It results in EVERYONE that says ANYTHING that offends ANYONE being censored.

Attached: flat,550x550,075,f.u1.jpg (367x550, 51K)

Attached: alinskyrulesforradicals.jpg (554x508, 62K)

This is a book on Amazon right now. Make of it what you will.

Attached: 41IH6yLbdkL.jpg (313x500, 26K)

How do you propose we combat it?

>a classic investing book from the 1930s
Name please?

Literal human parasites.

Attached: alinksyparasite.jpg (697x390, 48K)

rule 4 faggot. It's currently driving the left wild trying to justify their own obvious double standards

This book is a blatant copy of a book from 30s Germany
Which is a dumbed down version of the protocol of Zion
Which is a dumbed down version of the talmud

Okay, look. Alinsky's whole schtick was going from ghetto to ghetto and making the lives of the poor and exploited better. He did this by leaveraging their one advantage: their numbers. When he was doing his thing in the 20s and 30s, the poor was the largest segment of society. If you can organize them, keep them on message, and maintain pressure on your chosen target (be it a local alderman or slumlord, etc.), you can get shit done. That's it. That's the schtick.

However, the man foresaw his own obsolescence. In the 60s when hippies started taking an interest in him, he warned them the old way wouldn't work anymore. The middle class happened. "The Other Half" was no longer literally half of America.

Whatever the left is doing, it's not Alinsky's classic conflict organizing. The man simply DID NOT work with those in power. If you had the power, you were the enemy. Period. If he were alive today, he'd probably shrug at leftists crying over Trump. ALL presidents are bad.

One of the biggest mistakes the left is making is personally ignoring conservatives on social media and in general. That echo chamber they have built for themselves to keep from being triggered is also keeping them from understanding their enemy. This is a huge advantage for the right.

Confessions of a Stock Operator.

amazon.com/Reminiscences-Stock-Operator-Edwin-Lefèvre/dp/0471770884

Which I'm not hating in the least. I loved both books. And tons of classic literary works heavily borrow from previous classics. Just say, Trump is a genius because he studies and heavily borrows from great things in that medium. That's not a bad thing at all. That makes him a genius.

Implying Trump didn't use most of Alinsky's tactics to win in 2016.
Implying this isn't how conservatives should proceed in the future.
Implying shitlibs even understand strategy anymore.

Of course not. You’re average Jow Forumsack survives on a diet of memes and racist propaganda from stormfront.

we aren't losing every battle, we don't need to go down to their level to win

The same way Jow Forums has defeated everyone in the past successively. Complete and total no holds barred mockery. Don't attempt to censor them by shaming them like SJWs. Made them run away in fear, shock, and disgust.

This sites specialty sure as hell has never been holding an opponent to a disengenious standard. It's been no holds barred brutality including doxing and personal insults. If it's not broke, dont fix it.

Attached: 152.png (300x100, 44K)

Bullshit. These are tactics not strategies.

So essentially give them enough rope to hang themself and laugh the entire time?
I can work with that.

Yes we can I'm already doing it.

>can we break this down, analyze it and use it against them?

Attached: stone's_rules.jpg (720x1080, 112K)

this

Thanks, I will look into this.

>so my question to Jow Forums is can we break this down, analyze it and use it against them?
Yes.
It's already happening.
New rules, bitches.

I'll translate this from hebrew into english:

>RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
Make the enemy think that you have a massive consensus on your side even if only a few people actually agree with you. MSM does this for the left.

>RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
AKA have a handful of talking points that you train your followers to debate, rather than allow them to think critically and form their own ideas

>RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
Go on the attack constantly. Instead of defending your ideas, make the enemy defend theirs. It is easier to make blind attacks than to defend against one. If they lack the knowledge to adequately defend against any of your myriad claims, you can claim victory.

>RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
AKA, abuse the goyim's honorable intentions. If they are a non-violent organization, hit them with clubs and photo them when they try to defend themselves.

>RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Namecalling and ad-hominems. If you have nothing to attack them with, just call them Drumpf

>RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
Rather than get into boring things like debates, just start a riot

This whole debate reminds me of 2 punk high school kids talking about meeting each other after school to fight but making a list of rules like "okay I won't do this but you can't do that". You know who starts that back and forth? The weaker one.

Fuck morality, standards, and all that other gay shit. Anons have the advantage of anonymity, use it. You have nothing to lose by spamming pictures of dead fetuses at a pro-abortion SJW or calling some uppity black bitch a stupid nigger and shoving crime statistics down their throat. Use strategies like that instead of tieing one hand behind your back and having a slap fight.

I would argue about the 'human' part of your statement. Too bad they won

>RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
As 6. Frame this political contest as entertainment rather than something serious like the future of a nation.

>RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
As 3, constantly attack, since, as a leftist, your ideas are inherently indefensible.

>RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
The good guys can't really do anything too bad to you as long as they follow their own laws.

>RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
If you actually lose a debate, just suggest a compromise, or agree to disagree. Don't admit you lost.

>RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Isolate targets to harass (IE doxxing, mudslinging, etc.)

Pretty scummy tactics. You'd only use these if you knew your side's ideas were shit and you needed to compensate by playing dirty.

BASED Poland.

Attached: commiesarenotpeople.jpg (960x661, 322K)

If you tell me a non-botnet site to upload it to I can upload a pdf of it.

You fight on the open field and I'll hide behind the trees.

I think this was the problem for most blue-pilled people, especially myself before I woke up. You don't comprehend just how evil these fucking vermin are until you've experienced it yourself.

Attached: donotforget.jpg (579x636, 61K)

>can we break this down, analyze it and use it against them?
Only if we elect patriots (not current republicans/democrats) and you gather the balls needed to confront the "keep the people ignorant" in your family.

Oh, for fuck's sake. You're wrong on just about all of it. Most egregiously rule 9. He means YOUR threat is more terrifying to the opponent than the thing itself. The example he gives is when, in an effort to help striking airport workers, he threatened a "shit in." That is, volunteers occupying all the bathroom stalls in O'Hare airport until the enemy caves. This immediately brought the enemy to the table; the action was ultimately unneeded.

What you're getting wrong is in thinking these rules were meant for politicians or talking heads or some kind of idealistic establishment. Read through them again, and imagine you're organizing a bunch of renters living in a slum, or meat packers with unsafe working conditions, or Indians on a reservation with a corrupt tribal government. This is the kind of shit he did.

Or you could try something with a proven track record.

Attached: 41oxtGWzKXL._SX297_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (299x499, 21K)

A precis for the literacy-challenged.

Attached: rules for radicals.png (550x506, 318K)

thats cause is strategies for the have-nots and we are the have-nots in the information war cause we dont have infrastructure

Attached: 1533492347332.jpg (843x843, 87K)

>says the left isn't using Alinskyism

>Hillary Clinton's college thesis is literally on Alinskyism

This is my point. We're better at Alinskyism than they are now. Think of Hillary Clinton in how this is literally her entire programming... but she's an old evil entitled rich cunt, so her music doesn't work on us. Meanwhile, since we're the young and the dangerous intellectuals, we can take their principals and do them better.

Attached: NIGGAWHAT.jpg (638x648, 61K)

we have the truth on our side that s why we are winning

I know exactly who he was, professional shit-stirrer. The book was made for "community organizers" and union use.

It boils down to: be rabble-rousing and vicious, whip the crowd up into a manic hype, constantly launch accusations, and cause as much chaos as possible until people pay you to let them get back to their normal lives.

Ultimately, if all the "oppressed groups" got what they wanted, there would be a total economic collapse as the number of parasites and their demands would outweigh the capabilities of the providers.

Leftist politicians are sympathetic to these groups and many of them come from backgrounds as shit-stirrers, so continue the use of these tactics as appropriate at higher levels.

This. He was a communist/marxists community organizer organizing leftist before the internet existed. Even if it DID work for them (usually doesn't) it wouldn't work for conservatives in modern times as they are fundamentally opposing ideologies in a different era.

>Hillary Clinton knew Alinsky so well she wrote her college thesis on him and implemented his tactics during the election.
>Trump trolled people on social media with innuendo and mockery
Who won?

Attached: Screenshot_20180807-125235_Chrome.jpg (991x484, 151K)

Most people have never even heard the title. Nice conspiracy theory.

fake news

Turn their weapons upon them

>"community organizers

In all seriousness, if anyone shows up referring to themselves as a community organizer. Do everything in your power to destroy them and get rid of them as quickly as possible. I witnessed this in reality years ago at the beginning of this madness when one of these parasites destroyed my industry for his own personal gain using this stuff.

Don't believe a word that comes out of their mouths. They are sociopaths who are out to destroy for their own gain.

Attached: ABSOLUTELYSUBVERSIVE3.jpg (240x361, 23K)

>young and the dangerous intellectuals
thats not how it works at all, Alinskian tactics are not for the young and dangerous intellectuals, the whole point of the tactics is to use numbers to collapse the flow of systems by inputing strange situations into the line, its like symbolical sabottage, instead of throwing a wrench into the machine you throw a metaphorical wrench into a system that works on people's flow

sit ins, farting in operas, taking a thousand people to a mall and wasting the employees times while not buying anything, buying a bunch of shit and then returning it (collapsing the delivery system of the business for a whole day and rendering a final loss), collapsing the bathroom system of airports right after flights arrive, etc

its the equivallent of the effect the pepe memes had in the election, they were way outside what was normal for the normal flow of information battling in the midst of an election, we collapsed the shilling system by having them have to manage responses to absurd black humour

>Hillary Clinton's college thesis is literally on Alinskyism
Who gives a shit? Since when has anyone's masters thesis ever meant shit?

Nigger, you are literally retarded.

They're psychological pressure tactics that can be applied to anything. So we subverted the kike's tactics and don't use them as they intended. Whoops.

Attached: 1514351717531.jpg (248x189, 18K)

we use them exactly as they were intended
the book starts by sayig they are tactics for "have-nots" to use against "haves"

in the context of the book, ghetto people fighting big businesses are have-nots against haves

in our context, informational warfare, we are using personal internet connections, personal social media accounts small servers and ms-paint against corporate internet infrastructure, media conglomerate, blue check-mark coallition and mail lists, shill farms with ps and advertisers, graphic designers, seo specialists, and pr diplomas

so we are the have-nots

The rule on "using your opponent's moral standards against them" should be noted here.

>we subverted the kike's tactics and don't use them as they intended. Whoops.
Please lay out all of your "victories" using those tactics. All I've seen is:
>james Gunn
That's 1 with Disney who has strict standards. How about:
>Sarah Silverman
No consequences
>Dan Harmon
No consequences
>bill Maher
No consequences
>trevor Noah
No consequences
>who ever the chink bitch at NYT is
No consequences

That's not a very high success rate of you ask me. If you don't like people getting fired for saying controversial things maybe you should work harder to defend conservatives rights to free speech instead of attacking liberals for expressing theirs.

Attached: 20180805_233339.jpg (1024x812, 418K)

Attached: Donald_Trump_Sworn_In_As_President_of_Th_0_7096233_ver1.0_640_360.jpg (640x360, 47K)

donald trump

It doesn't work on leftists, because they have all sorts of bizzarre and illogical frameworks that they are conditioned with.

For instance, they will say that they are tolerant, but it's okay to hate Christians. Why? Because Christianity is intolerant (according to them). They will say that they are anti-violence, but it's okay to attack right-wingers because right wingers are genocidal, so its self-defense. They will say that they are antiracist, but its okay to hate whites because whites are oppressors. They say that minorities are oppressed, but white minorities in south africa who are actually being genocided, are still the oppressors.

The real challenge is to expose the hypocrisy before an audience. Anyone exposed to leftist ideas who hasn't already been indoctrinated, will inevitably turn away from it given enough information.

Bullshit. I don't recall trump going on twitter saying:
>REEEEE this person said something offensive! Get them!
I seem to remember him making up insulting nicknames for everyone and steamrolling over them by making them triggered as fuck and spazzing out.

Attached: reservoir_dogs_violine.jpg (340x223, 23K)

If only one side plays dirty, that side will probably win.

Well you're clearly emotionally involved for whatever reason and will keep moving goal posts around to suit whatever your view of reality is. So who gives a fuck what you think?

Post proof to support your argument.

Attached: 1513623059777.jpg (309x400, 28K)

why dont you read the book and stop looking like a idiot, or at least the list some user posted before
>REEEEE this person said something offensive! Get them!
thats not what the tactics are

>I seem to remember him making up insulting nicknames for everyone and steamrolling over them by making them triggered as fuck and spazzing out.
>RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
>RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
>RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

This is literally on the list. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

This unhinged psychological child clearly can't post any proof of their argument. Complete loser. Sad.

Namecalling is a tactic, making politics entertaining is a tactic.

Most conservatives are clean-shaven, respectful, business-as-usual type characters. Cruz would have probably been a better candidate, he was much more intelligent and diplomatic, and held like 90% of the same views as Trump anyways, but Trump was able to exercise unorthodox tactics (for a conservative) that made him more interesting, whip up a lot of energy and brought him victory.

>Well you're clearly emotionally involved for whatever reason
I firmly believe that people should be able to say whatever they want without repercussions. That principle is important to me.

I confess I don't see your endgame here. Do you think that if you successfully get a few actors fired for old tweets they will up and decide "oh okay, well we won't whine about hate speech anymore, let's call a truce and everyone can say anything."? They won't. The only way that ends if both sides advocate censorship is a radical leftists wet dream of blanket censorship for all.

Attached: 20180710_222723.png (427x360, 108K)

(((Alinsky)))

Born Saul David Alinsky

Early life

Saul David Alinsky was born in 1909 in Chicago, Illinois, to Russian Jewish immigrant parents, the only surviving son of Benjamin Alinsky's marriage to his second wife, Sarah Tannenbaum Alinsky.
>/THREAD
>T
>H
>R
>E
>A
>D

>Of course not. You’re average Jow Forumsack survives on a diet of memes and racist propaganda from stormfront.

Unlike you, who survives on a steady diet of assertions, feewings, and cock.

Idiotic child can't post proof of his argument. Wallows in complete failure. Wanders off back to his fap shed.

you niggers, look up James Mason.

He already lost at style why should i believe him on the rest.

You can counter three as its usually a goal post move. Crack a joke and drive the original point back into focus. Then mock them for not answering and ask again. They break.

These are examples of Alinskyism by the way, not real attacks. I was consciously trying to demonstrate how it works. Notice the effect it had on the guy trying to reason and logic with it.

Attached: pepemerchant.gif (400x400, 2.49M)

Everyone, go read up on consensus organizing instead.

If you want to learn how to beat leftist demagogues, taking notes from Hitler would probably provide more insight than utilizing the tactics of leftists themselves, due to the inherent asymmetry of the positions.

Hitler:
-Was an expert debater, had memorized topics of history and politics to an incredible degree, genuinely enjoyed studying these topics and discussing them
-Was passionate, and genuinely cared about all Germans, and it showed. He ran soup kitchens for the poor, while also organizing paramilitary forces to fight communist partisans who were trying to occupy private property
-Presented himself as the true revolutionary, while presenting his opponents either as subversives who want to destroy society or as mouldy old reactionaries who just want to maintain the status quo.
-Was a respected war hero who often talked about serious topics. Despite this, was able to turn around and be lighthearted and take pictures in shorts or riding a sled.
-Isolated opponents, not demographics. He never called the poor or the rich "parasites", he was able to unite people of all classes with promises of a fair system that benefits everyone without radically redistributing wealth
-United everyone with racial and national pride

When they go low, you go high. (This didn't work for Hillary because just saying it doesn't mean you're doing it).

Attached: Hitler on sled.jpg (728x546, 105K)

nope, what we want is both
conservative thought is normal thought, and there can be NO platform for leftists.

>Using the enemy's tools makes you the enemy
Were the soviets, nazis and western powers the same since they all used guns, tanks and planes?

It's really just ends vs means again. I am of the opinion that there are morally "bad" tools/tactics that should be avoided whenever possible. I also, however recognise that if our opponents use such means and we do not, this can result in our defeat. Our defeat ensures the perpetuation of both the enemy's means and ends, potentially resulting in these means perpetuating regardless of our choice.

I reconcile this as follows: Morally "bad" tools and tactics are never to be used, except against those who employ them against us or others first. This in principle ensures that the "bad" means are avoided in most cases, and in the cases in which they must be used, our victory ensures the end of their use.

Ofc this is in principle, in practice things like false-flags/corruption/etc can exploit this, however this is also the case for pretty much any other approach, and the combination of well founded principles + imperfect reality is a preferable choice over poor principles + imperfect reality.

>hang them on their principles

It’s like pottery

Great book btw

If you were smart, maybe. Too bad the far right is as stupid as they come.