Meh, I’ve seen better

The rules by which these big corporations function are getting dumber and more arbitrary by the day.

And that makes me happy, since virtually all of them are (((globalist))), anti-White organizations, so anything bad that happens to them is by default good for us.

What makes me sad is that there’s no concerted effort on our side to use this against them.

There are tons of games on their store that use real-life enemies, and every single one of you reading this should go report them ASAP, as well as search for other stupid crap like this and exploit it to the maximum.

Gamasutra:

Developer Slitherine’s strategy game Afghanistan ’11 has been pulled from the iOS App Store, a rejection that comes more than a year after the game first launched on the platform.

Why did this take a year?

Did they just make up this absurd thing, or are they really that incompetent?

The reason for the sudden pull, as explained to the dev in an email from Apple, is that the game features “people from specific government or other real entity as the enemies.”

How many games are there where your enemies are Hitler and other ebil nazis?

A ton, I think.

And those are specific people from a real entity too.

They might even still be alive and planning a comeback *fingers crossed*

Afghanistan ’11 is, as the name would suggest, is a strategy game based on actions taken by the United States in Afghanistan after the events of 9/11. That subject matter naturally includes conflicts between the US forces occupying the country and the Taliban, though Slitherine tells Polygon that the game is more about building infrastructure and offering support to Afghan civilians than outright combat against the Taliban.

Does it include giving various (((corporations))) hundreds of billions in no-bid government contracts without any oversight?

Because if not, then your game is pretty unrealistic.

Apple has, in the past, taken similar sudden actions against games based on historical events. In 2015, the company removed Ultimate General: Gettysburg and several other games from the App Store over in-game use of the Confederate flag, though that particular decision was eventually reversed.

The Confederacy was also a real thing, with real people in it (I checked on Wikipedia).

Why can you have those as enemies, but not sandniggers from Afghanistan?

I don’t really use any of this stuff – I’ve never owned an Apple product in my life, and I doubt I ever will – but I do know that any kind of site or store or any other business related to these big corporations are the enemy, and we should look to hurt them as much as possible, and using their own rules against them is a very effective way, probably even more effective than boycotting.

Learn their “principles and values” shit by heart, and abuse them in whatever way you can, especially ways that bring some kind of discomfort to the NPCs using the service.

All of these companies are far too large to enforce their own increasingly idiotic rules, so us doing this on a large scale would be catastrophic.

A study has finally exposed the darkest secret of the Alt-Right: NATO psychological warfare tactics being used to make people think mass nonwhite immigration is lowering their quality of life and that different racial groups have different levels of intelligence and behavior patterns.

This is the big one, folks.

The big reveal.

Newsweek:

Far right groups under the banner of the so-called ‘alt right’ are using psychological warfare techniques learnt from leaked NATO and British intelligence documents to spread white supremacism across the world, according to a new report.

In a study by the the Institute of Strategic Dialogue—titled ‘The Fringe Insurgency’—Julia Ebner and Jacob Davey argue that activists are “weaponising internet culture” to spread their ideology online and subvert democracies.

After spending several weeks undercover on online alt-right forums, the authors identified the tactics that users adopted to radicalize people online and mobilize support for the far-right groups, targeting anxieties over immigration, terrorism, and race.

They used “crowd-funding platforms, custom-made social media platforms and even the use of leaked military and intelligence resources from [U.K. intelligence agency] GCHQ and NATO to run campaigns against their own governments,” the report said. 

In August, radical right-wing groups gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia, for their largest show of strength in decades, while in European far-right organizations have used crowd-funding platforms to raise money for boats to patrol European waters and intercept refugees.

The extreme right also had an influence the German federal election, which saw a huge spike in suport for the extreme party Alliance for Germany (AfD).

The actual translation of “Alternative für Deutschland” is “Alternative for Germany.”

But hey – I don’t expect every random blogger to know the German language. A mistake like that shouldn’t discredit this totally real information.

In large-scale and well-organized online campaigns, U.S. and European extremists have worked together: “Their strategic, tactical and operational convergence has allowed the extreme right to translate large-scale online mobilisation into real-world impact,” write the authors.

The report exposes how the U.S. ‘alt-right,’ responsible for trolling campaigns in support of President Donald Trump during the 2016 election, shared tips and tactics with European extremists—techniques gleaned from military psychological operations—to disrupt the democratic process.

Ahead of the AfD success in the German federal election—in which it secured 26 percent of the vote and marked the first time that far-right party has won seats in the German parliament since the Second World War—U.S. ‘alt-right’ activists spreads tips on messaging board 4chan.

“Instructions from the U.S. elections on how to obfuscate and manipulate the media space were recycled and adopted to a German audience: this included memetic warfare albums such as ‘normie memes’, and psychological operations resources, such as a ‘step by step how to manipulate narratives’ that links to GCHQ online deception and disruption playbooks,” according to the authors.

…

The authors warn that the tactics used by the far-right are “more reminiscent of state-led psychological operations than that of terrorist groups” and urge policy makers, technology companies, practitioners and activists to adopt counter-strategies that match the sophistication of the far-right.

In February, civil rights nonprofit the Southern Poverty Law Center warned of the growth of extreme right-wing groups on the internet, which organize “troll storms” of abuse towards political opponents, and spread racist memes to mobilize support.

“It’s clear that more and more of these people are operating only on the internet, except when the moment comes to start shooting,” said SPLC expert Mark Potok.

And the blog regains credibility after having translated the German word “alternative” as “alliance” by citing the authoritative expert Mark Potok.

I was listening to TDS last night and found them to be claiming that these researchers are exaggerating the idea that the Alt-Right learned its tactics from NATO handbooks.

False.

I learned everything I know about memes from NATO handbooks.

Before I ever made my first Pepe, I studied in-depth the entire catalog of military literature of psychological warfare, so that I could use it to manipulate the minds of young people and make them believe that Jews are over-represented in media and academia, that the Holocaust never happened and that George Zimmerman did nothing wrong.

Without these NATO techniques, I would be nothing.

Srsly Tho

This is some kooky stuff right here.

But let me explain to you how this actually happened.

In part, it is what Mike Enoch said on TDS – that we hit on the same tactics as them through trial and error.

In particular, /pol/ has been a mass platform for trying and erroring all sorts of things for years. I have also used this website – which will celebrate its five year anniversary in July – to test out all sorts of psychological techniques on all sorts of people. I have done this both by doing it myself, as well as giving general instructions to others to rustle people and watched what happened.

Furthermore, the fundamentals of trolling – and yes, it is psychological warfare – were developed on 4chan (mainly /b/) in the 00s when people like weev were active in apolitical (or at least less politicized) trolling. “Lulz,” as the kids call it, is simply a type of malicious humor that comes mainly from causing people emotional distress on the internet.

Combined with the ability to transfer information through memes, you have a situation where you can force people to look at you, then influence their thinking directly using compressed information transfers. The informational packets within memes effectively created new neural pathways.

When you have an internet with this many people on it, testing out stimulus-response is not particularly difficult. In fact, it happens automatically, you just have to be smart enough to catalog valuable stimulus-response protocols in your mind (hint: you don’t really have to be that smart to do that).

As far as formalized technique goes, I have continually promoted Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (which is much more useful than any NATO guidebook). And presumably, people who write NATO guidebooks on psychological warfare have also studied that and studied the behavior of people who have studied that.

But saying “these guys are using Jewish cultural revolution techniques from the 1960s” is far less sexy than claiming we are using NATO psychological warfare guidebooks.

With regards to the NATO psychological warfare guidebooks that are circulating in these spheres that are referenced in the study: I only saw these in 2015, when Alt-Right trolling and meming had already developed into a pretty clear system. I then went on to read quite a bit of military literature about using the internet and electronic communications generally in psy-war, and found that their systems – at least as recorded in these texts – are much less developed than our own.

Presumably, the reason for that is that we are devoted to this, doing it ourselves, and that gives us more drive to understand it. We are also constantly processing feedback from our systems and updating them – often in real time – to make them more effective.

Using Meme Warfare Against Us

The study suggests that our methods need to be countered – apparently by military intelligence.

To that I say: good luck.

There isn’t any way to do that.

Meme warfare is an undermining of existing abstractions within the public mind by directly attacking the weak points with the energy of the victim itself. And this only involves words and images on the internet.

This is guerrilla psychological warfare.

That is why they tried to kick The Daily Stormer off the internet, why they are locking down Twitter and other social media platforms – we have been very successful with meme warfare, and that is the “counter” strategy.

Ultimately, this is a counter-revolution to the Jewish revolution against us. We are still living in the aftermath of the 1960s revolutionary movements, under a revolutionary government. That’s the importance of Alinsky – the Alt-Right is simply the first counter-revolutionary movement to adopt the techniques of the revolutionaries.

Our job is actually a lot easier than the Jews’ job in the 60s, because unlike people of the 60s, modern youth were raised to believe nothing is sacred, whereas the Jews had to directly undermine sacred, ancient institutions and cultural norms.

And it’s good it’s easier. Because we don’t have trillions of dollars to fund this operation, given that we didn’t take over the banking industry or any other industry before launching this counter-revolution (please do donate to us). We also don’t have control of the mass media in the way that 60s Jews did. So ultimately, our job is at least as hard, but the actual psych-war itself is fought on much more fertile ground.

However, They Can Totally Screw Us

The fact that they can’t use meme warfare against us doesn’t mean they can’t screw us, mind you.

Indeed, they can totally screw us. Because now, we are off the internet, in the real world, where they can use tried and true human intelligence, disruption and entrapment techniques to crush the movement completely.

I am sounding the alarm on everyone in this movement: all of these existing IRL groups are set up, to a virtually incomprehensible degree, to be setup by the feds and RICO’d. And that is going to happen if something doesn’t change. There is nothing stopping it, because no one wants to listen to me. I live in Nigeria, and so I can’t talk to them in real life, which creates a communication problem, and whenever I just publish the problems here on the site people just attack me as “infighting” (even though I am very careful not to call anyone out and certainly not to attack anyone in the movement), apparently hearing absolutely nothing I am saying.

Through the internet, we have created a movement involving tens of thousands of people using the most advanced psychological warfare techniques ever developed, and now the people leading the IRL movement are going to have the whole thing taken down by cops using the same primitive methods they use on 80 IQ Moslems. The level of frustration I have over this is indescribable. But hey – don’t let it get you down. The meme warfare will continue either way. And I am going to attempt, as I have said, to lay some groundwork for a more workable IRL movement.

(((Saul Alinsky)))

Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals

New York: Random House, 1971.

Rules for Radicals is [in]famous for its purported influence, and that of author (((Saul Alinsky))), among liberal and left-wing ideologues and politicians in the United States, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The political bent of this classic but reviled work by a community organizer from Chicago is shown on the very first page of the introduction by referencing “Joe McCarthy’s holocaust.” [It should be noted of course that declassified documents have revealed Senator McCarthy was pretty much always right about who was a bolshevik, but I digress].

The catch though is that the book isn’t  particularly ideological, even if the author’s sympathies are blatantly clear and he writes from the assumption that you believe in the same things he does. What Rules for Radicals is much more interested in is how to create the most effective community organizers, and how they should communicate if they want to be effective. Think of it as far-left metapolitics manual. There is thus a heavy focus on semantics, networks, pragmatism, and presentation. Being internally honest about power and self-interest in politics, understanding your audience, and using familiar terms rather than alien highbrow concepts are all considered critical. In (((Alinsky’s))) world of hyper-realism and self-rationalizing, things like principles, morals, qualms about the means used to achieve ends, and consistency are baggage and vices, not politically expedient values.

With that in mind it isn’t hard to see why the cuckservative, muh principles crowd that dominates the Republican party seems to be losing ground in our society at every turn. They cry that liberals don’t fight fair. They have what French New Right author Guillaume Faye calls “mental AIDS,” no immune system against the aggressive ideology of their enemies, whom they grant moral hegemony to. But what they do have, if not organized defense, is what social psychologist (((Jonathan Haidt))) calls the moral foundation of sanctity—they can be disgusted by things on the basis of their violation of core values.

(((Alinsky))) knows what disgusts these people. He advises against trampling on the American flag or burning it, for example, since that drives ordinary people away from radical politics. He instead says the radical should frame the values of that flag as having been perverted by the enemy. This is all too familiar a suggestion to readers in the current year, given leftist appeals to the validity of the Constitution of all things, and the redefinition of American history as having always been a march towards the equality of all people on planet Earth: blacks and Whites, men and women, heterosexuals and deviants, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, documented persons and undocumented persons, etc. The only thing standing in the way are those evil Republicans, who have perverted everything that Hamilton the musical is about. See how that works? A lot better than saying burn it all down—it creates the impression you’ve been robbed of something that should be yours.

The enemy of the cause must be black-and-white. (((Alinsky))) cites the Founding Fathers, who in their Declaration of Independence had not one good thing to say about the Crown, only listing its transgressions. For if one is to make an inspiring case to the people, who will have to risk everything for the cause, it had better be one that leaves no doubts about its righteousness. You can’t be concerned about how Britain provided soldiers to defend against Indian attacks or kept the sea lanes safe for commerce. Making these kinds of black-and-white arguments in and of itself is totally apolitical; they could be for either side.

One insight in particular felt very familiar to me, echoing a Hillary Clinton speech leaked during the campaign which had been privately given to a multinational bank. The Supreme Catlady spoke about needing to have a public face and a private face as a politician, something ((Alinsky))) would readily endorse. In practice, one sells two different positions to two different audiences, which is in line with the whole ends-outweigh-means thing. Of course I am for free trade and open borders. No I am not for “open borders;” that’s a right-wing smear. On that note, (((Alinsky))) says the radical must always advocate for 100% to the community he wants to organize, but as soon as negotiations begin with the powerful, take anything that moves the needle, even 30%. Say one thing and do another, as long as you are on target. That’s the utility of extremism in politics.

Thus, (((the long march through the institutions))) has a road-map that will take it up the mountain, while pseudo-reactionary Republican stonewalling of issues—for as long as is politically required by their constituents until leftward change is a done deal—leads to nothing. There is a reason why some of Bill Clinton’s campaign speeches from 1996 sound like Donald Trump’s in 2016, and it’s because the left has succeeded into converting many Goldwater-Reagan era Republicans into 1990s’ Democrats. Homosexual marriage will soon be a conservative issue when faced with transgenderism. And the latter will in time be accepted as well on the Beltway right. (((Alinsky’s)))  methods move the Overton window; cuckservatives merely follow Overton movements.

Another important (((Alinsky))) insight is that you need to have something of a “vague” vision of a better, inspiring future. At the same time, don’t become a single-issue organization. While 88-point policy plans may win over wonkish autistes, if you actually want to create a large community organized around common goals and oriented towards a common opponent, you need to go broader and less specific on the details. Consider the mental gymnastics that fiscally conservative Republicans go through to sell trickle-down economics—lower taxes on people and corporate persons who are responsible for providing employment so that they can expand operations and recruit more human capital, owing to their higher net income from reduced taxation of their business. Democrats simply run on a platform of doling out free shit to net tax recipients, including but not limited to a better economy jobs, social programs, and universal pre-kindergarten. Or they just blather about equality for 20 minutes and call it a historic speech. That’s a lot easier than talking about family values, national interest, civic virtue, trade policies, foreign affairs, etc. Just say we all deserve to be equal and my agenda is to make it happen. It’s an easy sell and no one really cares about the particulars other than critics. So, long live the ethnostate. What ethnostate? Doesn’t matter yet.

The long discussion on means versus ends is particularly useful. (((Alinsky))) talks about how people lionize Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi as a pacifist, but notes that pacifism was really the only means available in the first place of resisting the British at the time. He jokes that Gandhi must have noticed how Indians seemed to sit around all day in prayer or mediation, and then told them to shout slogans while they were doing it. Probably not the exact chain of events, but that is effectively what happened—multitudes of people engaging in sit-in protests. Which India banned almost immediately after independence—since those who usurp power generally, and correctly, wish to keep it and prevent the next batch of revolutionaries from unseating them in the same way they did in their predecessors. (((Alinsky))) also cites Lenin’s remarks about how the bolsheviks had to say they were for peace—well until they didn’t have to say they were for peace. In other words, the chosen means are just the most effective ways of reaching an end. If they don’t work, you don’t use them. If they stop working, you change them. And if they’ve never worked, you are doing it wrong.

(((Alinsky))) tactics work and continue to work for the left. Whether it’s calling every opponent a racist, or framing the enemy as always being a fascist, or having no attachment to anything that doesn’t effectively further the political power of their faction, the left we are dealing with now is smarter on culture, coalition, and community outreach than movement conservatives have ever been. The left, in true (((Alinsky))) style, sees itself on the side of “angels,” while its enemies are “devils.” The Beltway right only uses the term “crusade” to refer to tax policy adjustments.

The crucial question—Why I am writing about Rules for Radicals? Simply put, the Alt-Right is a radical movement that is interested in community organizing and propaganda. (((Alinsky))) wanted to organize “Have-nots” and “Have a little, want mores” against the “Haves,” and for them to meme effectively to that end. The Alt-Right wants to organize White people against the occupation government  (a globalist coalition comprised of Davos men, Hart-Celler Americans, and overseas Israelis), and for them to meme effectively to that end. Reading Rules for Radicals won’t change anything you believe ideologically, since (((Alinsky))) never really makes the case for what he believes in anyway. (Even if he did, if you are reading this you already know he is wrong). But hopefully, young radicals, you will take some lessons from it about how to better approach your task.

Probably the most important section for our purposes is the author’s drill-down of how he believes power works. He gives us 13 rules: I will attempt to give some translation:

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” – I have read innumerable articles in recent months from the lying press about how the GOP is full of crypto-White nationalists. Sounds good. Big if true.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” – We’re not going to get most people to do things they have no habit of doing. We need to play to the strengths of our existing human resources.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” – This and the above rule are standard Sun Tzu; know the enemy and know yourself or else you will be defeated. We must always stay abreast of the opposition, always be more informed, and always make them look stupid.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” – There are two key forms of this: concern-trolling and malicious compliance. Doing so will stress them out by increasing their cognitive dissonance load, bleed them of resources, and generally waste their time and energy. You can also bait your opponents into producing specific outcomes if they are inflexible and dogmatic enough.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” – Most of the Alt-Right’s troll ops consist of making a mockery of things. Ditto for our memes and critiques, e.g. cuckservative. It will probably go down as one of the greatest political slurs of all time: implying that your opponent gets off to watching his country be destroyed while his wife’s son votes against him. Cuckservative captures perfectly, and ridiculously, how the target serves every interest but the national.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” – Trolling. Shitposting. Meme magick. It never gets old because there is always something new to provide a perspective on, or some new journalist to troll, or a comments section to raid, or a viral media campaign to be fought.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” – I think the only area the Alt-Right sees diminishing returns on is putting out too blackpilled of a message, or being too gloom and doom. People don’t really want to hear that all the time, even when it has to be said. Things getting worse is after all part of the sales pitch as to why the Alt-Right’s solutions are necessary. On the other hand, we have to have a positive and future-oriented message to put out, and that reaches a bigger audience than commiseration.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” – I tend to think this won’t be much of a problem because there is nothing the regime can offer us that would be satisfying other than its resignation.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” – This certainly works in our favor given how (((neurotic))) the people we are engaged in holy memetic warfare with are. Even the implication of our presence somewhere or in something is enough to produce media hysteria and maelstroms of kvetching.
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” – At the moment this is our endless streams of daily content across multiple platforms, something we should continue to scale up and diversify.
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” – We want to get to a point where being labeled by the establishment as a racist, sexist, or antisemite is a sign of having done something correct, being that bad people are saying it about you.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” – In other words, to win you actually need an answer to the issue. It can’t just be about opposition. We must be more than reactionary.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” – This is my favorite and I think Alt-Right troll ops have done this quite well. First you get ahold of a luegenpresse journalist’s attention. Then you apply the other above tactics to him or her. Finally you get some sort of overdone reaction from them AND their supporters against you, which helps reinforce your own battle lines by showing that the issue you are up against is supported by x and x-plus, all of whom are against you. Many journalists noted during the 2016 presidential campaign that if one were of a Semitic surname (or known to follow a cult of volcanic demonology) and said something critical of Donald Trump, that he or she would be targeted and harassed on their social media or in the comments section. They began to reach out to one another about this and write about the responses they were getting, many going as far as labeling themselves with the triple parentheses symbol in solidarity. So what had basically happened was that our argument all along that overseas Israelis were uniquely opposed to nationalism in the United States was proven—by getting them to band together and admit that they were, and that they were proud about it too. See, all those people who hate Trump have (((something in common)))!

I think the Alt-Right is already in something of an unholy alliance with (((Alinsky))). That our trademark tactic is trolling while that of our enemies is banning and/or overreacting says something about how much society has been restructured since the 1960s. We’re the ones causing headaches for the regime, we’re the ones doing the culture-jamming, we’re the ones speaking on behalf of a marginalized class, we’re the ones tipping the sacred cows, and we’re the ones calling for revolutionary change. The meme war favors the offense.

I’ve been telling you guys for a while that you need to read this Jew book.

A lot of the strategy of this site is based on it, and those who are confused by some of the things I do would be enlightened. Those who are not confused would have their understanding sharpened.

Anyway, Stef gives here a pretty decent overview. Not perfect, but pretty good. He adds some factoids I myself wasn’t even aware of.

Watch this, then read the book.

Jews already did a massive social revolution. We are trying to do the same thing. The way to do it is already clear.

“Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals” was written by community organizer Saul Alinsky in 1971. It has become the de facto progressive manifesto for effecting political change.

Opening: “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.”

Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton met with Saul Alinsky several times in 1968 while she was writing her college thesis on his community organization theories. President Barack Obama’s education was also greatly influenced by Alinsky and his theories.

What is The Truth About Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – and how does it work?

Sources

Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals
http://www.amazon.co…g=freedradio-20

Hillary Clinton: http://freebeacon.co…illary-letters/
Barack Obama: http://www.wnd.com/2008/09/75101/

Occupy Wall Street: https://en.wikipedia…upy_Wall_Street
Black Lives Matter: http://www.pewresear…atter-movement/

Rule #3
Andy Hiller to George W. Bush, 1999: http://www.washingto…e181051_000.htm
George Stephanopoulos to Mitt Romney, 2012: http://www.newsbuste…5-contraception
Hugh Hewitt to Donald Trump, 2015: http://www.hughhewit…ook-the-pledge/
Megyn Kelly to Donald Trump, 2015: https://www.washingt…ill-sore-about/
NY Daily News: http://interactive.n…ssolini-stalin/

Rule #5
Guardian: https://www.theguard…-campaign-video
NY Daily News: http://www.nydailyne…ticle-1.2548865
Washington Post: https://www.washingt…y-pretty-small/
Salon: http://www.salon.com…s_breathtaking/
The Sun: https://www.thesun.c…un-the-country/
Mother Jones: http://www.motherjon…p-big-fat-idiot
Independent: “Donald Trump’s use of grammar ‘typical of children aged 11 and under‘”
Hillary Clinton to Matt Lauer, 1998: http://leany.com/Con…_transcript.htm

Rule #6
Chicago Tribune: https://www.washingt…rchy-who-knows/
CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/…tudy-finds.html
NY Magazine: http://nymag.com/the…e-wage-gap.html
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com…systemic-racism
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingto…4b00d9c3a179528

Rule #7
Hillary Clinton’s Alt-Right Speech: http://www.cnn.com/T…/25/cnr.07.html
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.c…p-a-racist.html
Washington Post: https://www.washingt…pentant-racist/
ABC: http://abcnews.go.co…ory?id=41660124
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com…-remarks-matter
Think Progress: https://thinkprogres…38da#.4t02g6778
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingto…b_10509158.html
GQ: http://www.gq.com/st…rsity-coalition

Rule #8
BBC: http://www.bbc.com/n…nology-27824701
Everyday Feminism: http://everydayfemin…n-her-pleasure/
The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingto…b_10231840.html
Salon: http://www.salon.com…_who_mean_well/
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2…-voting-rights/
Washington Post: https://www.washingt…m=.b101232e8ff6
Slate: http://www.slate.com…_mansplain.html

Rule #9
Environmentalist Nigel Calder, 1969: https://www.creators…/global-warming
Ecologist Kenneth Watt, 1970: http://www.breitbart…s-got-it-wrong/
Harvard Biologist George Wald, 1970: http://reason.com/ar…ay-then-and-now
Reuters, November 1999: http://www.nhne.com/…2k/archive.html
Mirror: http://www.mirror.co…rld-war-7928607
Business Insider: https://uk.finance.y…-084800880.html
NY Magazine: http://nymag.com/dai…e-to-power.html
Independent: http://www.independe…n-a7204706.html

Rule #10
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police
http://www.amazon.co…g=freedradio-20

Rule #11
Washington Post: https://www.washingt…m=.178b404740c6
Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotr…830-column.html
FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpage…niel-greenfield
NBC: http://www.nbcnews.c…s-black-n605686
NY Daily News: http://www.nydailyne…ticle-1.2645125

Rule #12
BernieSanders.com: https://berniesander…pay-fair-share/
Fox News: http://www.foxnews.c…hare-taxes.html
Washington Post: https://www.washingt…g-on-old-drugs/
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingto…e_b_343587.html
LA Daily News: http://www.dailynews…ng-thomas-elias
CNN: http://money.cnn.com…s-overcharging/
Hillary Clinton on Donald Trump “insulting” Black Communities: http://www.breitbart…t-right-speech/

Rule #13
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.c…d=fb-share&_r=0
Slate: http://www.slate.com…dship_over.html
NBC: http://www.nbcnews.c…here-it-n545746
Chicago Now: http://www.chicagono…t-donald-trump/
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingto…4b08a8e8b601bb6
CBS: http://newyork.cbslo…-trump-boycott/
Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywood…-boycott-920444
CNN: http://money.cnn.com…-trump-boycott/
Think Progress: https://thinkprogres…6fe5#.8wkyjm79i

Saul Alinsky, a subversive Jew who played a major role in organizing various Marxist leaning political movements in the 1960s, apparently corresponded frequently with Hillary Clinton during this time.  Newly published letters reveal that Alinsky had a profound influence on Clinton’s political views.  Even though this shouldn’t be much of a surprise, the letters do provide much more of a perspective on their relationship.

It should also be noted that Barack Obama has admitted being influenced by Alinsky.  Is it any wonder that we see America turning into a nation driven by Marxist philosophy?  Two of the most important political figures of the Democratic Party today are confirmed to have been influenced by this Jew who created strategies to torment and disrupt the traditional American establishment.

Washington Free Beacon:

Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.

Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.

The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.

The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.

A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.

On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”

“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”

“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.

Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.

However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”

“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.

According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.

“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.

She added that she missed their regular conversations, and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California.

“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”

Clinton’s letter reached Alinsky’s office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where he was helping train community organizers in the Philippines.

But a response letter from Alinsky’s secretary suggests that the radical organizer had a deep fondness for Clinton as well.

“Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Alinsky’s long-time secretary, Georgia Harper, wrote to Clinton in a July 13, 1971 letter. “And I’m glad I did.”

This should be a bombshell, but no doubt the media – including the Jew-run “conservative” outlet of Fox News – will simply glaze over it.

Download the .PDF of Alinsky’s seminal work, Rules for Radicals.