Rules for Radicals: the war manual for poor people. Not limousine liberals. Not champagne socialists. Just poor.



Saul Alinsky was a forerunner to Method Research. He tested out his theories in the real world by walking among his subjects, but his was a post-hoc version of it, yet his results ended up being a book called Rules for Radicals.

His rules?

  1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."

  2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people."

  3. "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."

  4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

  5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

  6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

  7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."

  8. "Keep the pressure on."

  9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

  10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."

  11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside."

  12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

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

Simple. Effective. Elegant.

But they are not universal.

They work, but they are highly misapplied these days and misunderstood.

The Right hate Alinsky. The Left think they own those rules.

Both are silly and hopelessly wrong.

Alinsky’s rules were not partisan-based. They were class-based. They had failsafes to prevent rich motherfuckers from using them against poor people as it gave poor people a chance to crawl out of the hole the wealthy dug to kick their competition in to bury them.

Alinsky was very careful. He didn’t call his book a war manual or a guide for the poor. He wanted to energize this broken demographic, realign their perceptions, and give them a narrative to give them the power and incentive to push forward. It is not called “Rules for Poor People” after all, but “Rules for Radicals.”

They are very effective in many ways, but the Left ideologically appropriated them.

To understand how badly the Left fucked this war manual up, let’s look at another movement that was short lived, but extremely effective: Art Nouveau, or Jugenstil.


Art Nouveau lasted about twenty years, and for an art movement, it was very short.

It began when a bunch of young European male artists couldn’t break through from the Establishment artists.

They wrote manifestos, and all but declared war on those rich bastards.

They had a plan: they made art of mundane objects, from furniture to posters to jewelry to lamps to buildings. They found a new market and niche, and were daring.

Eventually, those swaggering turks broke through, and abandoned the movement.


Mission accomplished. They went on with their careers and lives. The end.

Those in the movement understood the purpose of their movement, the ultimate goal, and that once they broke through, the movement was to be discarded because it no longer applied to them.

You mature. You go on to the next level of success that requires different strategies from the ones you needed once you arrived and delivered.

The American Left have never gotten this memo.

In the 1960s and 1970s, they used the rules and broke through.

But then kept using the rules they ideologically appropriated with diminishing returns.

These rules are not Left going after Right. In fact, if rich Left people go after poor Right people, the rules turn on them.

Every single one of these rules are for the Davids in the David and Goliath battles. Plug in the variables and do the math yourself. A rich person ridiculing poor people? Do the optics play well?

Of course not.

How does a rich person demand a poor person live up to their own rules when they are too busy surviving and protecting their children from a life of destitution?

Easy for a rich asshole to do things with a staff looking after their brats. That’s the reason Alinsky said for the poor to force the hands of the rich: show they are hypocrites even though they have no excuse in the world to be hypocrites, and you break the spell of perfection.

And if the rich use their resources to trample the poor? You become a global pariah.

These rules are not meant for the rich because they make them look like psychopaths.

But the same standards don’t apply when you are poor because someone who is rich is keeping you back and down.

So when rich Leftist Hillary Clinton called poor people who wanted to vote for her rival a basket of deplorables, she was using Alinsky logic, forgetting that she was not poor and they were.

She radicalized the poor Right the way Alinsky radicalized the poor Left — the difference being she didn’t intend to do that, and Alinsky did. That is her legacy and she alone owns it. For someone whose undergraduate thesis was on Alinsky, she has no feel for it.

The wealthy Left keep using Alinsky and it is increasingly backfiring. They couldn’t stop Donald Trump with it. They aimed lower and then couldn’t stop Brett Kavanaugh from becoming a Supreme Court judge.

They failed to sink Fox News because the FNC targets poorer people on the Right — giving them all sorts of scapegoats why their lives went off the rails. I recounted this in my second book OutFoxed in detail.

The limousine liberals and champagne socialists are stuck in a time warp where they think they are the fringe outsider rebels and radicals.

Don’t fucking delude yourselves, assholes.

You are the Establishment.

If you have an Oscar, Emmy, Tony, Grammy, or Golden Globe somewhere in your house, you are the Man.

If you have graced a cover of a national or international magazine, you are the Man.

If you are a politician, actor, singer, media owner, fashion designer, current or former cast member of Saturday Night Live, or corporate executive, motherfucker, you are the Man.

Fuck you.

Don’t try to use the Rules for Radicals when you are the Man.

You are a rich bastard. You can retire the war manual. Saul Alinsky called from Eden and he says to put the book away, and stop using it on poor people because you are not poor.

Stop using the rules against poor Right people. Stop using the rules to exploit and co-opt the poor Left people.

It is time for someone to finally use those rules on you.

Experience has made you rich, to paraphrase a song.

And now they are after you…

CNN's propaganda strategy: Gaslighting as an abusive ex-spouse. A case study of Reliable Sources.



Dangerous Woman was a song and album that came out in 2016.

My venture A Dangerous Woman Story Studio came out in 2013.

Screen Shot 2018-12-30 at 3.39.32 PM.png

So when people make the assumption that I called this A Dangerous Woman based on the song, I say, “NIce try, you dumbass motherfucker. I predate it by three years.”

I am not impressed with people assuming that I am the follower, just as I am not impressed when people talk about there not being a feminist Intercept when I had it years before the actual Intercept.

So Grande is not only unoriginal, the “dangerous woman” label nowhere near fits the goods.

There was a terrorist attack during her concert in Manchester, she didn’t explode herself or show anything other than timidity.

A dangerous woman would have not just produced a “fuck you” album, she would have done a lot more things to upset the Establishment.

She gets disrespected at Aretha Frankin’s funeral and just took it. She should have whacked him one, and reminded him, “R-E-S-P-E-C-T” or he’d find out what happens when you fuck around with a dangerous woman.

And as an aside, when my time comes, and someone does something disrespectful to you at my Viking funeral, please kick them in the balls as hard as you can, and call them “motherfucker” from the top of your lungs, even if we were besties and my death wounds you deeply, and the whole wide world is watching. You can even give them the finger. Calling them an asshole or picko jedna for good measure is a classy and dainty touch. I will be wholeheartedly cheering you on from Eden if you do. Don’t use my death as an excuse to allow bullshittery to go unpunished. Fuck that shit.

But in the communications industries, what you see on the label isn’t what you actually get: you are told this entity represents X, when it represents Y.

We see this in the entertainment industry, especially when they proclaim to have “strong women” or “feminist” characters. It is utter and total bullshit. You cannot have a singer who is rail-thin, in a mock Playboy bunny outfit, and living up to every stereotype of a typical starlet be a “dangerous woman.” She defies no conventions. She adds nothing new to the discourse. She creates no new genre or message.

She isn’t a dangerous woman. She is a popular singer. She can carry a tune. She may be ambitious, but you do not have to be a feminist or a dangerous woman to be ambitious.

But it isn’t just Hollywood that misdirects attention with bombast and empty promises.

It is journalism, too.


Because journalism is trying to fight for its existence a day late and a dollar short, they are going for a melodramatic propaganda campaign that is holier-than-thou and self-aggrandizing.

Just like the psychopath ex you dumped who tells you that you cannot live with them.

There is a lot of gaslighting and a narrative where they are the selfless martyr who has to risk their lives for you, even though there is no evidence of it.

I doubt this will be their propaganda campaign in 2019 because it is not working.

But let’s break down how journalistic gaslighting works as their is the least sophisticated version of it.

And to keep things even simpler, let’s take a look at CNN’s journalistic meta-propaganda tool, a show about journalism called, ha ha, Reliable Sources, which is anything but reliable.

Mind you, once upon a time, this was a very good show. When Howard Kurtz and Bernard Kalb were hosting it. They actually did take a critical look at their own profession, had very smart and good interviews, and had good information and perspective.

Now, it is just plain garbage and bullshit used to propagate a self-serving narrative that journalism is the abusive ex you cannot live without.

Puke, puke.

So what propaganda is Reliable Sourced puking?

Well, the episode I saw today was the martyr bullshit story about how it was a “record” year of threats against journalists, which is nonsense. There really isn’t any reliable stats out there. After all, as a journalist, I got my share of various threats, and not one made it to any list of database, and we have had years where people such as Daniel Pearl, Chauncey Bailey, and Jill Dando were killed on the job as a direct result of doing their job.

Even if we were to look at stats, let’s not fall into a confirmation bias of looking at a single profession in a vacuum.

I bet it is more dangerous to live in Chicago than be a journalist.

Or someone on a cruise ship.

Or an aid worker in a war zone.

Or a US high school student.

I bet more nurses in Hamilton get harmed on the job in one year than the entire profession of journalism in a decade.

Or firefighters, police, and high school teachers because while I never met a reporter who got assaulted on the job, I know several teachers that did. I had a student in one of my college classes that I found later had beat another professor. I witnessed a classmate in the second grade throw a desk at my teacher and broke her leg.

How many first responders died on 9/11, compared to a single photographer who was killed by falling debris? (there were a few non-journalists who worked for broadcasters who were killed, but they weren’t targeted per se or killed covering the event — and you cannot compare them to the people who died saving others).

So when we start to do apples to apples comparison, journalism comes off as a very safe profession. Covering the sex life of Ariana Grande is not actually dangerous.

So it is safe to say journalists aren’t sticking out their necks for you.

They may be sticking their necks out lying, and their editors get fired for it when it gets exposed, yeah.

It isn’t as if journalists don’t die, but it is often from a domestic meltdown, a murderer who knows nothing of their profession, illness, or a drug overdose.

That happens to everybody.

But that is not the only sneaky things we see: trying to discredit critics by accusing them of having “fake” complaints" is rich and a typical gaslighting ruse.

I wonder if Fixpoetry is so cocky now that they ignored my warnings from the latest book and their nation’s most well-regarded newsmagazine published a whack of lies for years.

And no, Haaretz, journalism’s problems have nothing to do with “technological” shifts or having a hand’s off approach to so-called “rising stars”: they just never bothered with empirical methods. You don’t need an army of fact-checkers: you need empiricism. If you read my first book, you would have seen how many cases of fraud there was in all sorts of times and places — whether or not there was a photographer present.

There was a photographer present for this lie, Haaretz.


So here is a profession that never owns up to their problems are bothers to investigate their source. They take wild and unscientific guesses, but always fall back to trying to scare and gaslight people into trusting them.

Nice try.

But you fucked up your profession, and it screams the truth no matter how your try to manipulate the people who have abandoned you…

Notice how people notice bad things only when it happens to them?


Screen Shot 2018-12-30 at 8.28.38 AM.png


A paranoid press is making this sound as if this kind of cyber-fucking is just happening to them.

Not at all. It is common.

This kind of warfare happens in every sector of society, and all of the time.

But watch the press try to spin this as some sort of assault on the press, the way they have been spinning the death of Jamal Khashoggi as the same thing despite evidence to the contrary that even some others in the profession acknowledge, albeit far later than others have, including me.

It is navel-gazing and an attempt at making people think they need to go back to an old, abusive spouse because he got mugged.

What we have is lousy cyber-security. We have vested-interests who take advantage of it because citizens — and that lazy press — don’t exactly make real demands or ask important questions…

Intellectual Gesamtkunstwerk: Creating the visionary's matriarchal scaffolding.







I took an Art Nouveau course from Oxford University. Loved it lots for many reasons, but how often do you get to write Gesamtkunstwerk?

It is a clever concept. It is a visionary’s concept. It is a world building concept and a creator’s concept.

Build from scratch from the ground up. You are the clock. You are the compass. You design the structure and then the content.

The world is your canvas, and it is part consilience, part art, part science, and part engineering.

We often think of it in terms of art movements, but using it as an inspiration to create an intellectual scaffolding is something to consider.

I have when I created F.R.E.E.D. and refined and codified Matriarchal Storytelling.

We don’t have that kind of visionary thinking for journalism, and it is the reason I am doing what I am doing. Creating alternatives.

Everything is very patriarchal, and while Gesamtkunstwerk can imply creating everything to fall into The One, we can also create mosaics of the Infinite with them. We are not tethered by it, and the concept in no way places any kind of blinders.

We come with the blinders.

And it is funny that we speak of blinders as if that were an excuse: we may have blinders, but what about our other senses? Why are they not telling us important information?


We are not tethered.

And yet we hold on to disposable ideas as we are held back.

That’s why you get manipulated and played.

Instead of doing an intellectual inventory, weaving new facts into a latticework of ideas as we discard those that have been proven faulty, people hoard bullshit.

And then think shutting their eyes will make the evidence go away.

You don’t have to see it, but hear it or feel it.

What I am doing is building a scaffolding for information. I discussed one sector of it — journalism, and to a lesser extent, patriarchal fiction.

Now I am moving on to strategy.

The point is to use more than one sense to gather information.

And getting rid of any and all excuses to build new worlds and to find the big picture…

"The Inevitability of Impeachment" = The Inevitability of Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential Campaign. How the New York Times sticks to the same propaganda.






Trump's futile war against the media

The Republican nominee appears locked in with his losing strategy

By: Allan Levine
Posted: 10/12/2016 12:36 PM


Historically Conservative Ohio Newspapers Endorse Hillary Clinton

October 31, 20164:15 PM ET


Hillary Clinton for President

Hillary Clinton for President



The Inevitability of Impeachment


My favourite film is an obscure Carey Grant number called People Will Talk. It is an old film, but reminds me a lot of our neo-Victorian age. Grant is Dr. Noah Praetorius, a doctor who blows into town. His students love him, as do his patients.

It is everyone else who thinks he is too unorthodox and the judgemental people in town just want to take him down, particularly a rival professor, and he plays dirty in trying to bring charges against him.

The press have been playing that sick game with Trump since he declared his intention to run for president.

They have been trying the same gambit — and one that they have no business doing. They are to report facts, not try to rig things so their decrees are adhered to by others.

They decreed that Hillary Clinton would be president. They were wrong. My latest book explains why this meant the profession of journalism is over.

Now they are trying to up the ante and go for impeachment, hoping that Trump will resign.

The New York Times is trying that gambit. I would not be surprised if the Times ends up in a scandal in 2019 having to fight for its own existence.

Doing the same propagandistic thing and expecting a different outcome is a strong hint they have sins in their vault that they know will get exposed and soon.

As the press is in even a weaker position than they were pre-November 2016, it is becoming more difficult to try to regain what they squandered.

As I have repeatedly said, Trump took advantage of an opportunity. He knows who he is dealing with. He is absolutely right in calling the press “fake news.” They are. They have been for a long time.

But he didn’t make that bed. Journalists and their overlords made it. Now they are trying to cover up their sins by getting rid of a president they know will win a second term. The more they go after him, the more of their own weaknesses show.

And the damage is already done.

That is the reason I am starting Chaser: let’s move away from this pathetic spectacle of deceit and propaganda. Let’s make finding facts a priority escapade and mandate.

Because this bullshit isn’t working and citizens don’t need to be patronized or bullied by the press…

Basic Income: A leftist corporate idea with the longevity of Hands Across America. Or Band Aid.



Do they know it's Christmastime at all?

Feed the world
Feed the world
Feed the world 
Let them know it's Christmastime again 


Considering the target of the song weren’t Christians, it wasn’t their Christmas.

But it felt so good that getting entertained could save the world!


The supergroup was appropriately named “Band Aid”: as in offering a bandaid solution to a serious problem.

This was one of the origins of slacktivism: do not get inconvenienced, but do the same thing, and expect a different outcome.

Throw some money at the problem without actually facing the reason why there is a problem in the first place.

It is classic limousine liberalism, and champagne socialism. It is feel-good and do-nothing, but people get awards and prestige on bullshit.

It is all in the packaging.

Basic Income is of the same ilk: Big Tech want to sell widgets and do away with having to pay humans. So they replace humans with machines, but those humans will end up on the street.

Well, they are on the streets, living in their cars, working full-time for Big Tech, anyway.

So how to sweep this harrowing problem under the rug and still bribe the public into not getting appropriately disturbed?

Feed them a bullshit story called Basic Income.

We will give you free money. You don’t have to work. We will pay you to go away…

On second thought, we will lobby the government to give you free money to shove off.

Here is MIT Technology Review getting shocked that this scam isn’t working:

Back in June we declared, “Basic income could work—if you do it Canada style.” We talked to the people on the ground getting the checks in Ontario’s 4,000-person test and saw how it was changing the community. Then, just two months later, it was announced that the program is ending in the new year rather than running for three years. The last checks will be delivered to participants in March 2019.

They banked on Canada — a country that is nothing like the US — being successful with the scam so the Leftist Big Tech could use us as part of their propaganda campaign.

You do not want to “do it” Canada-style. It didn’t work for numerous and obvious reasons: for one, the provincial government was in the red like no other non-sovereign entity in the world: there was no way this could last very long.

Second, it tore down the ruling Leftist party because it split the vote: Basic Income is too basic, and people are competitive, always wanting more money. The NDP made big promises, and so, the vote was split and the Conservatives won and did away with it, knowing full well that it wasn’t sustainable and they weren’t losing any votes cutting it off.

You cannot just throw money in a black hole and get no return. You invest, and you get something in return. Basic Income doesn’t require people to work, and that is its fatal flaw. There is no incentive for people to get a job.

It goes against human nature: we were made to work. You plant seeds, and the seeds bring plants the clean the air, and food that nourishes people and animals. Basic Income is like throwing seeds down the drain.

And Basic Income is not for the convenience of the poor. It is for the convenience of the rich: they cannot justify their billions when there is too much homelessness on their account: get the government to throw pennies, people will be grateful, and you can go on being a robber baron.

Band Aid didn’t stop starvation. Hands Across America didn’t make a dent.

Basic Income is a Leftist corporate invention used to ward off criticism of their super-rich.

The focus should be on education, and those robber barons being better monitored as we remind them that true capitalism is the system where labor is respected.

And, perhaps most importantly of all, we stop selling people a bill of goods that they can be rich and famous on doing nothing. We don’t have teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers, or engineers who are revered as much as people who mug on social media or go on “reality shows.” So people don’t apply themselves, and when their prefab fantasies bring them nowhere, they want a pension at twenty.

Basic Income is a deflection strategy so people do not get angry too soon before the architects of their ruin can form an exit strategy and get themselves out of the hot seat before people clue in to their ruses…

More jive turkey from the federal Liberals.

Justin Trudeau seems to be hellbent on getting replaced by Andrew Scheer.

This is not something a real strategist would say:

Trudeau says it’s worth ‘pointing out’ similarities between Scheer and Harper

You mean Scheer will bring back the good old days when Canada was highly respected, got deals done that benefitted the country, and did not gratuitously offend countries around the world that have clout?

This meme poster has been making the rounds on Facebook:


Many Canadians would love nothing more than to take a time machine back to that simpler era, and if Andrew Scheer represents a happier time in Canadian history, they will be more than happy to go for the ride, especially the beggars that are now a common presence in the voter-rich Golden Horseshoe.

If you want to do free advertising for a rival and compare him to a highly-respected predecessor, then I am certain the federal Tories will be absolutely thrilled that the jive turkey is doing their work for them.

And it is highly disrespectful to think that someone who doesn’t think the same way you do isn’t respected. I was not a fan of Harper’s, but his status among the conservative base has gone up, not down since Trudeau took office.

I remember NDP leader Tom Mulcair’s concession speech — he also gave warning, and he, too was right on the money.

At this rate, all Sheer will have to do is just show up and keep quiet as his competitor does all the work for him…

2019 brings a shift in focus.

As I have mentioned before, what is popular on this site and what happens to be my focus are two different things. If I talk about journalism — which is critical — then I don’t get that much traffic.

If I talk about strategy — which is also critical, but not what I am known for — then I get more traffic and more people coming here and staying.

To those of you, thank you.

We can see the in-fighting in journalism. The Wall Street Journal bringing the Washington Post to task for their propaganda.

And it is propaganda. There was a war against journalism, but journalism is no better with their war against democracy. Media stocks are not seeing a lift from their little raging wars, but a tumble, yet it isn’t stopping them in the slightest.

So what does that mean for this website?

Chaser is going to re-invent information dissemination.


A Dangerous Woman is going to continue to do storytelling differently.


But those aren’t the kinds of content I can produce every single day.

I’m bootstrapping, remember?

I am an army of one woman. No staff. No fabulously wealthy benefactors I have to appease.

So as I shift away from the old journalism, I am going to focus on strategy.


And how propaganda and manipulation are misdirecting collective thought away from critical thinking and free will with hate, fear-mongering, and ruses.

I will mention how certain articles are trying to rig thinking.

But also how to expand your options and outcomes with considering options that are hidden and suppressed.

I will be running down various war strategies, and recommend books and articles.

You know mine, but as I have ten Ikea shelves worth of books — and counting — filled with all sorts of reading, this will be your go-to place for it. It will be your reality check when you are tempted to let others do your thinking for you.

With anarchy coming because the Establishment failed to manipulate enough people to vote the way they wanted in 2016, the big guns are all over the place, this is the place that gives you sensibility in an impossibly ill-behaved world.

Screen Shot 2018-08-09 at 9.53.40 PM.png

I already know who is reading me. I might as well give them something to talk about…

When you have those cock-sucking motherfuckers thinking they can bomb people into submission, they should realize not everyone rolls that way.

So, for all the gaslighting, puritanical shaming, and the like, let’s not fall for that bullshit in 2019.

Let those lazy Establishment fuckers earn their keep for once.