10 New Rules For Radicals

Coming Apart author Charles Murray recently pointed to a very restrained rebuttal that the American Enterprise Institute’s Caroline Kitchens gave to some “idiotic, vicious criticism.” Kitchens had expressed some skepticism about campus rape, and the shrieking left converted her analysis into “Rape Culture Is Just Drunk College Sluts Lying.”

This is so typical of them. By “this,” I mean a liberal rant that is either a blog post or a social-media crusade or a Wikipedia edit meant to humiliate their opponent. The roots of this culture go back to the Frankfurt School but really got momentum from college professors indoctrinated by manifestos such as Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

By “them” I never mean educated alpha males prepared to give rational arguments. I mean the churlish left’s frustrated beta males, bored girls, and bullied gays hell-bent on revenge.

Authors such as Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg take the high road and rarely even read such rants. “I’d never give them the pleasure,” Goldberg once told me. Breitbart used to call it “punching down.” However, when you diligently assemble a controversial argument with “some degree of vigor,” ignoring a critique takes some willpower. One thing you’ll notice about these ridiculous rants is that they all look the same.


Oxford’s Writing and Style Guide makes it clear: “Great care should ALWAYS be taken to spell the names of people and companies correctly,” but leftist smears often spell the name wrong. Kitchens missed her criticisms the first time around because “The fact that she referred to me by the wrong last name added to the confusion—an error they later fixed without any indication of a correction.”


In high school we learned about straw-man arguments, ad-hominem attacks, and guilt by association, but today’s leftist bloggers were apparently playing hooky that day. For example, anything remotely non-liberal about race instantly becomes, “Why are you so scared of brown people?” and the argument becomes all about a petrified scarecrow that isn’t even there. Whenever a male says something construed as too macho, we hear ad-hominem attacks about his tiny penis. And the SPLC wrote the book on guilt by association. The “Far Right Embraces Book That Rewrites Matthew Shepard Case,” said a recent headline. If homophobes like his book, then gay author Stephen Jiminez must be a homophobe. If Hitler used toilet paper, we must all be Nazis.


Kitchens never said anything about “drunk college sluts,” but it’s easier to argue against a fictional character. What used to be a dirty trick reserved for the National Enquirer is now commonplace among the Gawker types. “Racist,” “Homophobic,” and “Sexist” are tossed into the headline with no qualification whatsoever, and in an era where people rarely make it past the first couple sentences, that’s what sticks.


The more beta the male, the more they love using boxing terms. It reminds me of the way women in the fashion industry are always using Ebonics ironically with lines such as, “I swear if she doesn’t get me those samples by five, I’m going to bust a cap in her ass.”


What used to be two sane adults comparing data has become nothing but catty insults. As David Derby says in his book Snark: It’s Mean, It’s Personal, and It’s Ruining Our Conversation, it’s “indolent parasitism as a work ethos.” These people are so used to preaching to the converted, simply repeating what their enemy said while dripping with incredulity is enough. If you were to say, “There are more black neurosurgeons on TV than in real life,” their response would be simply to repeat that quote and scream, “Can you believe this shit!?” Instead of refuting this statement with actual numbers we’d hear about what a racist asshole this person is, and his statement would be twisted into “Bigot Says Blacks are too Stupid to Become Doctors.” The next time you hear about this guy, it will be from the person next to you at a restaurant whispering, “That’s the guy who said he’d rather die than let a black surgeon operate on him.” In the critique on Caroline Kitchens, the author improves her argument with a GIF of Kristen Wiig saying, “Are you fucking kidding me?” As Alinsky points out in Rule #5, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”


When some comedians dared to say it’s possible for a rape joke to be funny, every writer in America without a sense of humor vilified them. Feminists claimed rape was the N-word of assault and could never be discussed in any context but abject horror. Of course, when James O’Keefe was arrested and went to jail, all bets were off and the left couldn’t wait to make jokes about him being raped in prison. It’s ironic because if you include prison,more men get raped than women so if anyone should be telling people they can’t joke about it, it’s men.


“They think we’re evil. We just think they’re wrong” is a quote often misattributed to Dennis Prager, but it actually comes from Charles Krauthammer. It is a great summation of the Smurf cartoon world the liberal arts have imbued in their graduates. In school they were taught an imaginary universe where innocent peasants pleaded for porridge while corrupt kings laughed in their faces. When the real world offered nuance instead, they just fabricated the bad guys and screamed “evil” at every Gargamel who disagreed. This is classic Alinsky as referenced in Rules for Radicals #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.)”


Politicians have no problem making big decisions unless it starts to affect their own lives. Schwarzenegger was one of the few to stand up to the unions until they started to protest outside of his house, whereby he immediately capitulated. These bloggers are the same. They are so unaware, they will Tweet to their 34 followers how irrelevant Michelle Malkin is. They will accuse an author of cowardice while using a fake name. They will publish gun owners’ home addresses without realizing they left themselves open to retribution. Point them out. Publish their picture. Confront them in public and you’ll never hear from them again.


Liberal bloggers have no problem recounting a story about a hard-working immigrant family who risked life and limb to swim to America in the dead of night. I’ve yet to meet one who knows how many illegals we have in this country. They can tell you about the terrible wages teachers make, but when you ask them how much America spends on education per student, they know it’s somewhere between $1 and $1 million. (“Whatever it is, it’s not enough” is a common response.) This is because they don’t truly care or even believe in what they’re saying. If they did, they’d have looked it up.


If they’re not empowered by an irrelevant blog nobody reads, they will go on a Twitter crusade against your clients and advertisers until you’re broke. This is happening right now with Terry Richardson because some girl in England just decided that unsubstantiated allegations from three years ago have to affect his pocketbook today. This is Rules for Radicals #8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” I understand why someone would passionately disagree with someone else, but why does that lead to wanting that person’s family to go hungry? Why does anybody want to jeopardize their enemy’s employees’ mortgage payments? I think it’s because the new left’s snark culture is ultimately anti-American and anti-capitalism. They’ll spend all day trying to get you fired and then get back to Kickstarter where they encourage strangers to give them free money to fund their documentary about oppression. I don’t know how many times people have come up to me and said, “I wish I could say what you do but I’d lose my job.” Musicians and artists seem especially desperate to come out of the “not liberal” closet. We live in a culture of fear where a very small number of shrill infants with no idea what they’re talking about are silencing the voices of the majority. It’s hard having strangers attack your reputation, try to get you fired, and even threaten your family, but being a coward is much worse. Whether we “punch down” or ignore them, it’s crucial we never stop speaking freely. If they get the world of censorship and thought control they’re pushing for, we’re all doomed, including the “radicals.”

If hate-crime laws were enforced, even more blacks would be imprisoned.

If sexism was gone, all lesbian porn and “slut walks” would be banned.

Every gay that got an underage rent boy would be imprisoned.

If multiculturalism was enforced, sharia law would rule the land.

Under a truly “radical” regime, the “radicals” would be the first to go. TC mark


More From Thought Catalog

  • http://dev.agonybooth.com/gavin-mcinnes-rules-radicals-30634 Angry Gavin McInnes Has New Rules For Radicals About How All Liebruls Are Dumb, Not Just The Lady Ones – the agony booth

    […] Thought Catalog. Yes, Gavin McInnes, noted political theorist, would like to tell you all about his 10 New Rules for Radicals, which is basically just a laundry list of all the ways genius Oxford debater Gavin McInnes thinks […]

blog comments powered by Disqus