How To Trump SJWs

by Manon Welles

  College-age SJWs have gotten so bad that comedians are refusing to perform at universities. Jerry Seinfeld — one of the cleanest and most PC comedians — said political correctness has gone too far. Along with Chris Rock and Larry the Cable Guy, he no longer plays colleges because the kids are too sensitive and will scream “racist” or “sexist” at every joke. [16]

  SJW Logic: It Doesn’t Exist

  SJWs pay no attention to facts or logic. Millennials tend to get their news from two main sources: Facebook and comedy shows. On Facebook, they share memes, photos and quotes with specious sources. A study showed that 68 percent of 14- to 30-year-olds choose social media like Facebook and Twitter as their first news sources. [17] Comedy shows seem like a strange place to get the news — especially for a crowd that yells “bias” at anyone who tries to back up an argument using an article from Fox News. But satire news programs like Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Trevor Noah and HBO’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliver rank high in the list of millennials’ news sources. Gone are the days of Johnny Carson and David Letterman, who may have done a few political jokes, but didn’t make their entire shows SJW rants to spread propaganda. Now all of the late-night shows, and even Saturday Night Live, have a Leftist agenda. It’s all due to copying the success of Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show from 1990 to 2015, who turned it into a satirical political news show.

  While some young adults still read traditional news sites, SJWs gravitate toward those with a strong Left-wing bias — MoveOn.org, The Huffington Post , Slate , Salon , The Daily Beast , Daily Kos, Politico, AlterNet, ThinkProgress and many others.

  This lack of facts and logic results in rants like the following, when an SJW was arguing with a black Trump supporter. The SJW said of Trump:

  “He’s extremely xenophobic. He’s incredibly corporatist. I mean, like, how can, like, tell me what policy that he has is not fascist. I mean, like, the thing is, like, the wall is fascist. His immigration policy is fascist. Hold on. His war policy, his foreign policy, his war policy, just the act of saying, you know, we need to target family members of the terrorists, we need to target children in some cases. That’s incredibly fascist. That’s something that Hitler would say. That’s ridiculous. Who? Who? Name me one other politician who has advocated for killing a child.” [18]

  First of all, it’s very obvious this person doesn’t know the meaning of fascist or how to construct an argument. The name-calling is stereotypical, lazy SJW behavior. Anyone with just a basic knowledge of logic knows that claiming someone is “fascist” is the conclusion on an argument — one that should be made only after a long string of supportive premises. If someone tries to discuss issues with you this way, it’s not worth your time. The young man then says a border wall is fascist, implying that enforcing immigration laws like every other country is somehow fascist. Finally, he completely twists Trump’s comments about the families of terrorists. Had he done some research rather than relying on Facebook and Left-wing comedy shows for his news, he’d know that Trump was talking about investigating family members like the mother of the San Bernardino shooters, who lived with her son and daughter-in-law in a house where bombs and bomb parts were discovered. Or the family and friends that harbored one of the terrorists responsible for the shootings at the Bataclan theater in Paris. [19] Or Noor Mateen, the wife of the Orlando shooter, who helped him pick out guns and scope out the crime scene, who promptly disappeared (though she’s now under investigation by a grand jury). [20] And of course, Trump never advocated killing children.

  Microaggressions: SJW Thought Police Seek out Thought-Criminals

  One of SJWs’ main goals is to prohibit free speech for any position they find offensive. Whether it’s banning the use of certain words or phrases or banning people they disagree with from speaking, SJWs now act like the Thought Police in George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four .

  The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) reports that more than half of America’s colleges enforce some type of speech code. Universities also issue guides for understanding “microaggressions” — words and actions so tiny that a well-adjusted person wouldn’t even notice them, but that to SJWs are threatening. Asking an Asian or Latino, “Where are you from?” is a microaggression. Saying “There is only one race, the human race” is a microaggression. Telling an Asian, “We want to know what you think. . . . Speak up more” is a microaggression. And yes, even saying “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” is a microaggression. All of these examples are from a University of Missouri diversity handout. [21]

  In an ironic turn of events, at the University of Manchester in Britain a debate on feminism sponsored by the school’s Free Speech & Secular Society banned two speakers from an event called, “From liberation to censorship: Does modern feminism have a problem with free speech?” The first, Julie Bindel, is a lesbian feminist who campaigns against violence against women. She was banned for apparently being a “transphobe” and a threat to the school’s “Safe Space policy” because in 2004 she wrote that a man who has a sex change is still a man. Gay conservative Milo Yiannopoulos was also banned from the event. He has called being trans a “psychiatric disorder,” which is exactly what the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5 labels gender dysphoria. [22] In fact, it’s only because it’s classified as a disorder that treatments like hormone replacement therapy and gender reassignment surgery covered by Medicaid.

  SJWs call banning people they disagree with “no-platforming.” They don’t understand that there’s no “right to not be offended.” Or that it’s only offensive speech that really needs protection under the First Amendment. Or that the great social and political reform movements throughout history began with people saying unpopular things.

  As you can see, SJWs have already gone from being a nuisance to being a real threat to freedom and liberty. As Michael Walsh said, writing for the National Review : “As for Alinsky, somebody should turn the tables, and instruct the Right how to use his principles against him. It’s the only way to beat his ghost — and his hate-filled love children.” [23] This book aims to do just that.

  Alinsky’s Handbook for Leftist Agitation

  Saul Alinsky was a community organizer in the slums of Chicago, and later numerous other locations including New York, Michigan and California. President Obama, a community organizer in Chicago himself, contributed an essay in a compilation book in praise of him.

  Hillary Clinton knew Alinsky personally and wrote her 92-page senior thesis at Wellesley College about his tactics in 1969. In a letter to him in July 1971, she wrote:

  “Dear Saul,

  When is that new book [ Rules for Radicals ] coming out—or has it come out and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation? I just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [ for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people. You are being rediscovered again as the New Left-type politicos are finally beginning to think seriously about the hard work and mechanics of organizing.” [24]

  His secretary sent Hillary several reviews of Rules for Radicals in reply, since she knew Alinsky was fond of her. She also told Hillary where she could meet up with Alinsky when he was in California later that month. Alinsky had even offered her a job out of college, but she opted to go to law school at Yale instead. Though she agreed with some of his ideas, she thought “ the system could be changed from within.” [25] For more on Hillary’s relationship with Alinsky, check out Dinesh D’Souza’s 2016 documentary Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party, o r the book by the same name.

  Although for most of his career Alinsky organized black communities in the ghetto, in 1972 he described his plans for organizing the white working and middle classes — those called the “silent majority” by President Richard Nixon several years before. Alinsky was worried that these whites — due to economic despair, increasing crime, taxation and inflation — would end up turning to the Far Right. They wou
ld be “ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday.” [26]

  Alinsky died later that year, succumbing to a heart attack at age 63. Yet his tactics for Left-wing radicalism have remained in play, from the hippie and Black Power movements of the ’70s, the New Communist Movement in the ’80s and ’90s, to Occupy Wall Street and Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign in the 2000s.

  Alinsky said his tactics could be used for the Have-Nots to take power away from the Haves. His view was the same as SJWs today — that people who have money and power, even if just enough for a middle-class life in the suburbs, must have gotten it by theft, oppression or the elusive lottery ticket of “white privilege.” It’s the same sentiment President Obama expressed in a 2012 campaign speech: “ If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” [27]

  By the middle of Obama’s presidency, the silent majority had descended into despair. All their worst fears seemed realized on the news each night — the White House lit up in the rainbow colors after the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage yet did nothing when five police officers were shot and killed in Dallas; a mischievous Muslim boy, whose “homemade clock” would cause panic if left under a park bench, was lauded as a victim and invited to the White House; police were targeted for shootings by Black Lives Matter supporters, a group that seems to cause more racial division than unification across racial lines. Then, like Alinsky warned, “some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday” rode in with a plan to Make America Great Again.

  At first, conservatives’ were divided on Trump. Some — like Ann Coulter and the so-called Far Right — loved him immediately for his tough stance on illegal immigration. Others, still caught in the PC tentacles of the mainstream media, didn’t like Trump’s “tone.” But once they saw that upwards of 50 percent of Republicans were voting for him, they realized his tough tone was exactly what was needed and that it was OK to not kowtow to the PC police. As a sign seen at a Trump rally proclaimed, “The silent majority is no longer silent.”

  Trump continued to rise in popularity — in the polls, but more importantly, among people who were actually voting. Before the primaries were even over, he had broken the record for the most votes ever received in a Republican primary (beating out George W. Bush’s 10.8 million votes in 2000). [28]

  Trump’s popularity is a historical milestone for conservatives. Since the publication of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals in 1971, patriot-minded Americans sat at a near-idle for 40 years while the radical Left increased its power. With the election of Obama, they thought America was at the threshold of their socialist paradise. Things just weren’t quite bad enough for conservatives to start to act. Then, Alinsky’s worst nightmare came true: Moderate and conservative Americans had been pushed too far. A candidate rode in on a while horse who finally said what everyone had been thinking about illegal immigration, the refugee crisis, taxes and the economy. Because of the economic crisis created by George W. Bush’s bank bailouts and seven years of Obama, Trump easily won over the white working and middle classes. Regardless of whether he wins the presidency, his nomination as the Republican candidate has huge implications. It’s shown Republican politicians the issues they must address to win. It’s shifted the discourse outside of the small box of what’s politically correct. It’s shown Americans that they can demand that politicians put “America first.”

  The reign of radical Leftists and SJWs is coming to an end. Either everyday Americans will take back control of the country by massive GOP and Tea Party victories in November 2016, or Hillary Clinton will get in and prolong the Great Recession until everyone is too poor to worry about pronouns and microaggressions.

  I hope that America doesn’t experience a complete collapse like socialist Venezuela, but that’s certainly a possibility if Hillary gets elected and things continue down the same path. Another civil war is a terrifying thought, but given how divided the nation has become due to Obama and the mainstream media, it’s another possibility. This time around, it won’t be the North vs. the South. It will be freedom-loving patriots vs. fascist SJWs and anyone else who believes they’re “oppressed.” That’s why it’s so important to start using these tactics now, while there’s still time to shift the tide by using just words.

  Perhaps the final nail in the SJW coffin will be that Trump’s platform echoes the words of Alinsky the year he died: “I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back.” [29] Here’s how to do it.

  Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

  Rules for Radicals is the most popular how-to guide for Left-wing agitation. As more and more conservatives have grown tired of SJW-style antics over the past decade, it’s become a No. 1 bestseller among the Right-wing who, confused by the hypocrisy and violence of the Left, have looked to the book to understand why the Left has been so successful and how to fight back.

  Alinsky was dismayed by what he saw as ineffective strategies on the Left — such as when the Weather Underground vandalized houses and assaulted police officers during the “Days of Rage” in the summer of 1969, eventually starting a series of bombings. He called such people “rhetorical radicals” because they offered no real solutions — only chaos and violence. And when these rhetorical radicals did engage in conversation, they did so by issuing lists of demands that were outrageous and unrealistic. Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals to teach Leftists to work within the system rather than against it, in order to bring about lasting change.

  Alinsky gives numerous examples of tactics he used during his tenure as a community organizer. One of his ideas was to go after Eastman Kodak (now the Kodak Co.) for exploiting the black community in Rochester, New York. His suggestion was to target the Rochester Philharmonic, the “cultural jewel” of the city’s elite, and thus Kodak. [30] The plan, which he never carried out, was to buy 100 concert tickets for an orchestra performance (one with quiet music), give the tickets to local African-Americans, and before the show take them to a community dinner where they were fed tons of baked beans. The idea was to cause so much noise and stink that rich women who attended the symphony would plead with their husbands, many of them Kodak executives, to give into whatever demands they wanted. Alinsky liked the tactic because it played into what he considered the black community’s “hatred of Whitey.” Going to the symphony, however, was outside their area of experience and could therefore misfire (see Rule No. 2, below). The Rochester fart protest has become notorious for proving the depraved tactics the Left is willing to go to.

  In fact, Alinsky was the inspiration for a similar fart-in at the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign set up a feeding station of beans for Bernie Sanders’ delegates, journalists, and other attendees to feast on prior to the event where Hillary Clinton was officially nominated as the Democrat nominee. [31] Given that the convention isn’t a recurring event like the symphony, it’s uncertain how they thought it would do anything except elicit stories in the news. And apparently, they didn’t have many people turn out for the event.

  Alinsky had a penchant for thinking up “stink bombs.” Another proposal he never used was to get poor people, presumably African-Americans, to tie up all the bathrooms at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. It’s legal for people who don’t have plane tickets to lock themselves in stalls and just read for 10 hours straight, and everyone getting off a plane needs to use the bathroom. You can see the elation dripping from Alinsky as he describes how mothers would tell their children to just “do it right here” in the airport hallway. The tactic was leaked and the city of Chicago gave in before what Alinsky gleefully called his “shit-in” was carried out.

  I’m not suggesting you resort to “stink bombs,” or risk people suffering dire medical consequences by blocking access to bathrooms. But you must remember these stories if you forget the utter depravity of the Left and the lengths the
y’ll go to in order to win — and this was from a book published in 1971. We know from the violence of Black Lives Matter and anti-Trump protestors, that today they’re willing to go much further. This is the most important thing to remember when dealing with the Left: They don’t follow your rules . Thinking they do is committing activist suicide.

  Conservatives tend to fight “like gentlemen” by default. They don’t want to bring their opponents’ wives or kids into the fight, and they’d be horrified at the notion of petitioning for someone to be fired unjustly. When you’re dealing with the Left, however, you have to forego all chivalry and fight the battle at their level. These tactics will give you ideas for doing just that.

  The success of the Left stands on the shaky foundation of the Right’s sense of decency and its opposition to fighting dirty. Conservatives today are like soldiers trying to win a modern war using techniques from line infantrymen hundreds of years ago. Soldiers would be dead in a flash if they didn’t abandon old-fashioned rules of warfare. We need to adopt both the methods and the weapons used by the Left if we’re going to win.

  This is one reason Trump has been so effective — he’s the first Republican to call the Dems out for their tricks and punch back with the same methods. This is why throughout this book I refer to Trump’s success in his political campaign. Today he’s the best example we have of someone beating the Left at its own game.