Rules for Radicals hitting Disney now

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

~Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Disney is being cancelled by the right, using a tactic similar to Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals rule about isolating a target. That's what happened to Bud Light.  That's what happened to Target.  Next in line, it appears is Disney, as they were one of many companies claiming they did not want to advertise on Twitter / X.  Elon Musk told them where to go with their advertising boycott.  But to be honest, the Disney debacle preceded the Twitter kerfuffle. 

This is what happens when the mainstream of America, not the mainstream media, actually don't put up with woke extremism. 

Conservatives are proving Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals work

The case of the ongoing Bud Light boycott is setting an example for other ESG-compliant companies. This proves that Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals rules work. First off, here's the continuing saga of the ABInBev, Bud Light's parent company:

They are hurting and it keeps getting worse.  Now consider these Alinsky Rules for Radicals principles:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." This is precisely what has happened to Bud Light.  It has become the example of what conservatives will do if pushed too far. Perhaps its isolation as a target will strike some fear into other companies to not hop on the woke bandwagon for the sake of a few more sales, or a social governance checkmark from the left.

"Keep the pressure on." /"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." Yep.  Self explanatory - no one has dropped the boycott despite half-whispered apologies from Bud Light's management. And it will have much longer lasting and further-reaching consequences if the pressure continues - beyond ABInBev.

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage." / "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."  These two go hand in hand.  Much of the social media about Bud Light is mockery.  It's fun (albeit a juvenile ploy that won't win you any serious debates) and it's unrelenting nature is doing nothing to allow Bud Light's management to rest, think through their responses and react effectively.

This is proving to be a potentially pivotal moment in the woke culture war on common sense. It also should be heartening for conservatives to see that we are not powerless in the culture war.  We have a tactic that works for us just as it works for the left.  It also should be a reality check; these tactics can and do still work for the left.  We still have to understand how to stand up to them when they are employed against us.

Infiltration of conservative media

I subscribe to SiriusXM satellite radio. My favorite channel is the Patriot Channel.  They focus on conservative shows in the mold of Rush Limbaugh.  There are a number of great shows and hosts.  My concern is the news.  The News is done by an ostensibly conservative source - TownHall.com So when I'm listening to the news and I hear them incorporating leftist talking points it makes me cringe.  Is someone infiltrating conservative 'news sources'?

This morning in talking about the January 6th capitol fiasco (not riots), TownHall news referred to them as the "deadly January 6th riots". Technically there was at least one death but to hear them framed that way on a purportedly conservative news source is as maddening as anything Liz Cheney has ever said or done. They are playing into the hands of Democrats who claim this is the worst event ever on American soil. 9/11? ANTIFA? Pearl Harbor? The Civil War? You are feeding that lunacy by not calling it out and by using terminology that Saul Alinsky himself would be proud to have written.

Have they been co-opted or infiltrated by the left?  Are they influenced by or partnered with the anti-Trump establishment Republicans?  I don't know the answer but I am nonetheless perplexed that TownHall is doing it, even if they are unaware it is happening.   And why is anyone on SiriusXM Patriot channel not challenging it? Are they being silenced or are they perhaps not listening to the news broadcasts on their own channel?  I doubt any of the conservative hosts would agree with that as the correct characterization of events that day.

That's it, you're in this world now

Have you ever thought about weaponizing language the way the Left does?  They do it all the time, as if it were a hobby.  Everyone except American patriots have done it.  China does it as evidenced in the first section of the below report:

So why are we not doing it?  This is part of the political battlefield we exist within.  In his Rules For Radicals, Leftist Saul Alinsky suggested the following: RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

Here's one example that I've often wondered about.  When those on the left complain about being  "triggered", they are using a word heavily related to guns.  So "triggered" should be a trigger word for them.  Call them on it.  In fact, why not go one step further and suggest an alternative.  Then suggest the alternative because you are the one controlling what it might be.  How about instead of "triggered" maybe they should say something like "bothered".  If they see your point and start using that, you've effectively marginalized the impact of the trigger event and indeed the whole notion of triggering.  When someone says "that bothers me" it doesn't carry as much weight as "I've been triggered".

In fact the phrase "bother words" instead of "trigger words" sounds ridiculous and minimizes entirely the extent of the concern, putting it on a level it deserves to be. "I said something politically that bothers you?  So what?"

Their immediate acceptance of the idea that the phrase "trigger words" is in itself trigger words, gives us the opportunity to replace it with something belittling of the notion that they may not even immediately realize. But only if we have that alternative suggestion at the ready.

Add Tucker Carlson to the list of Leftist targets

Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals includes this evil gem: 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.

The Left targets people it cannot counter with arguments, which most often is every conservative pundit.  It's progressive politics meets McCarthyism and it has a history of working. Look at all the people they've done that with and for the most part until recently, not been pushed back on. To various degrees of effectiveness the Left has targeted the following people - Robert Stacey McCain, Milo Yiannopoulos, Anthony Cumia, Elizabeth Johnston, Roger Stone, Owen Benjamin, Candace Owens, Gavin McInnes, Alex Jones, Jordan Peterson, James Woods, Laura Loomer, Ben Shapiro, Jesse Kelly, David Horowitz, Lindsay Shepherd, Danielle Stella, Pete Hegseth, Katie Hopkins, Stefan Molyneux, Donald Trump Jr., Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad)  and Zero Hedge.  That's just a partial list and just from the last few years.  Well, now we can add Tucker Carlson to the list of targets:

Watch out Tim Pool, you are probably next.

William F. Buckley vs. Saul Alinsky

Mobilizing the poor, on Firing Line.  Saul Alinsky was a far left progressive, communist.  Hillary Clinton, not only wrote a thesis on the man, she was clearly a fan.

As a palate cleanser, here's Buckley with Margaret Thatcher.

Gingrich speaks a little too Inside Politics sometimes

Newt Gingrich mentioned in his victory speech that the president has been driven by Saul Alinsky radicalism.  If you've followed politics over the last few years, you know who that is.  I know who that is - I even wrote about countering Alinsky over two years ago.  The problem is, there's a lot of people who have no clue who that is, as CNN was forced to explain in a sugar-coated piece their political ticker blog;

In framing his attacks on President Barack Obama for a possible November showdown, Newt Gingrich repeatedly brings up the name of an influential radical organizer from the first half of the 20th century.

"Saul Alinsky radicalism is at the heart of Obama," Gingrich said Sunday in an interview with CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley... 

And earlier, at a New Year's Eve campaign event in Iowa, Gingrich declared that Obama "really is sort of a classic Saul Alinsky radical whose basic ideas are the opposite of what we need to create jobs."...

Alinsky's most famous book, "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals," describes a confrontational method for curing economic inequality - something most conservatives would shun.