Alinski`s Rules for Radical Darwinists
Since I have been enjoying a refreshing debate with my good friends in the Darwinian community, I decided to post their talking points. Actually, I obtained this from a right-wing atheist site (surprisingly) called the Politburo Diktat. The proprietor would be well suited to the role he is playing at, were he born in the good old Soviet days.
Now, don`t misunderstand me; there are good conservatives who are atheists, and good people who are liberal atheists. These are the people you rarely hear from, because they understand that people disagree, and that a person of Faith has arrived at their views through good will, just as they have theirs. I can think of a couple of really good guys in the Conservative Movement who are unbelievers-Christopher Orlet (who I link to frequently) and Shawn Macoumber come to mind. They have decided that they don`t believe in God, but they don`t hold it against those who do. Not so with many, particularly many of the members of Darwin`s Tabernacle Choir; these are the militants, those who are angry with God, and wish to kill him. The Kommisar is one such, despite being conservative on a number of issues.
At any rate, he put out this list of talking points, which bear a remarkable resemblance to Saul Alinski`s ``Rules for Radicals``. I have reprinted it here, with my own commentary in bold, so that you can see what these guys are up to, and why they operate the way they do. You will see much of these principles applied by my detractors here at Birdblog.
The Wedgie Document
Arguing with Creationists on the Internet
The Creationists have their Wedge Document. Rational people need one too. Here it is, The Wedgie Document, a guide to arguing with Creationists on the Internet.
Note the dripping sarcasm; he refuses to admit that intelligent people can disagree.
The purpose of The Wedgie Document is very specific: to provide rational people (defenders of science, evilutionists, whatever) with guidance in presenting persuasive arguments in internet debates. Someone once observed that 90% of the people reading these debates have their minds made up. ItÂs the other 10% of potentially open-minded readers that this document will help you address. A related purpose, at least for me, is to learn. A few months ago, I didnÂt know what abiogenesis was, nor falsifiability, nor helium-rate diffusion. If you engage in fact-based debates, you canÂt help but learn.
Update: The day after I wrote this, the NYTimes reported on a similar guide for museum docents. Plagiarists
I know this is nitpicking, but he forgot to use spellcheck.
TACTICS
Play offense - Find a logical inconsistency or gross factual error in his argument (easy to do) and hammer it. Avoid playing defense. By that I mean it is not possible to define, illustrate, and defend the whole of evolutionary biology in a blog post or comment thread. I donÂt mean to avoid specifics. Factual details are good! Find a huge mistake (or 2-3 mistakes) in his argument and point them out. The typical Creationist will defend them for a long, long time.
Now we get to the meat of it! Play offense-this is the age-old leftist tactic. Do not let your opponent have their say, put them on the defensive and keep them there. That is why Darwinists come in swarms, firing from different angles. They want to get their opponents into a urinating contest. Of course, those who disagree with Darwin likewise cannot defend the whole of their position in a blog post, and they seek to exploit that. This is straight out of Saul Alinski, or Joseph Goebbles. Vintage Fascist tactics.
Stay focused - The typical Creationist will throw the kitchen sink at you. Focus on whatever topic(s) you want. Trying to respond to a lengthy list is a waste of time. Your own blog posts should be similarly focused on some specific evo topic or theme.
This is an interesting point; what he is saying is that the Darwinist should not respond when holes are poked in his theory. Stay focused means stick to the talking points.
Be factual. DonÂt insult him or call him names - Tearing apart his argument will do it for you. Remember that any personal attacks or nastiness plays to his persecution complex, The big bad evilutionists are trying to stifle free inquiry and were mean to me. Obviously, personal attacks are counter-productive to the purposes of the Wedgie Document. In particular, I would not call him a fraud and a liar; I credit most of them with sincerity. They are not lying; they are mis-informed.
Now here is something that none of these people are capable of doing. Invariably, when their arguments disintegrate they turn to insults and name calling. Run a google search on my name, and you will see a steady stream of adjectives such as idiot, moron, fool, etc. Why? Because they quickly grow frustrated that they cannot win the argument. This happens to anybody who disputes Darwin-just ask Tom Bethell. Der Kommisar himself always refers to those who disagree as morons.
Questions - YouÂre under no obligation to answer his questions. You are playing offense. You should enter the discussion with a focused question or challenge (presumably unanswerable by the Creationist). He will doggedly defend it for a while, then will demand that you answer HIS questions. Nope. You donÂt need to say it in so many words, but I asked you first is a very fair stance. But if you want to answer it, be prepared. If youÂve written a blog post about trilobites and punctuated equilibrium, you do not necessarily have to engage a challenge about information theory.
Again, more obfuscation and attack. Play offense because you cannot defend your position! Remember, HE is the one who claims the case is closed, that the science is indisputable. It`s up to the Darwinist to satisfy the onlooker, not the other way around. We merely point out the inconsistencies and fallacies of the theory.
Google him - If he throws out something new, Google it before you respond. Creationists are lazy. More than half the time, a factual rebuttal is available right there on the internet.
This is ``opposition research``; digging dirt on the enemy. More fascism. I can`t complain about researching your rebuttal, but two can play at that game!
Lengthy comments - Some blog commenters go on and on and on. DonÂt. No one is going to read it. Make a brief, readable point, no more than 4 or 5 paragraphs, maximum. If you need a link or two, for further supporting details, thatÂs fine.
Know victory - When the creationist says something like, `Well, science doesnÂt have all the answers and we have a lot to learn,`` thatÂs as close to admitting error that you will ever see on the internet. Let it go at that point.
That is a classic Leftist tactic-never, ever admit you may not be absolutely correct. This is an attempt at intimidation, an absolute refusal to give a single inch. Most ``Creationists`` don`t want to spend eternity arguing with some rabid atheist-they have lives to live, and prefer to settle things amicably. Not so with the fire-breathing Darwinist (or any other such Leftist); they will proclaim victory if you let them off the hook.
Netiquette - If you are commenting at a CreationistÂs blog, you should remember that you are like a guest in his home. Not only should your exchanges be as polite as possible, but (more importantly) you should recognize that any blogger reasonably expects to get the last word on his own blog.
Never happens! I generally lose interest and let these guys yap like scalded puppies, because I would spend eternity arguing with them to no end. Why? Because they cannot, will not permit opinions that deviate from theirs. Why? Because it is all about Atheism, about the use of science as a tool to club religion-especially Christianity. They simply cannot allow the impression that they have lost the argument, because this is the only way they can justify their view.
TYPES OF CREATIONISTS
Unpersuadables - Creationists tend to be more religious, less well-educated, and more inclined to Âconspiracy theory type thinking than most. They are seriously unpersuadable. Like all netizens on any side of any issue, they are completely stubborn. Almost all creationists are Unpersuadables.
``More religious, less well-educated``? Hardy, har, har! If there were ever examples of True Believers, it is the Darwinists. Also, one of the Liberal/Darwinist enticements is the anointing; once you become one of them you are the elite. It is a monstrous snobbery which rejects anyone, no matter how well educated or thoughtful, as a hillbilly rube if they disagree. Again, this is intellectual fascism.
NOT Creationists - How often have you read the following? I am Not a Creationist but just a Sober Critic of Evolution? Such a statement is routinely followed by a lengthy re-hash of the oldest, most discredited Creationist nonsense. Apply the duck test comrades. If it looks like a Creationist, quacks like a Creationist, and walks like a Creationist, then it is a Creationist. Do not let the `NOT Creationists` get away with that.
Here we have the Big Lie. Apply the duck test yourself, Comrad! As the Bard once said ``Me thinks he doth protest too much``; the fact that YOU are disingenous about what it is you believe, and why, does nothing to impugn my veracity. You refuse to admit that there are people who believe in, say, Directed Panspermia, or even neo-Lamarckianism. What, pray tell, was Luschenko?
There are ample reasons to disagree with your pet theory-that does not a Creationist make (and, by the way, notice how they refuse to use the preferred term Intelligent Design Theorist? I`m all for calling them Perpetual Motion Theorists, since their Belief stems from something from nothing.) Why don`t YOU admit that you are using Darwin to justify your Religious beliefs?
Quote Miners - This is tough to deal with in a comment thread. By definition, the Creationist is taking something that Stephen J. Gould or another scientist said out of context. Trying to fit a misleading two-sentence quote into context, in a comment thread is not easy. You might try: On matters of evolution, shall we accept all that SJ Gould said as authoritative, or just this one out-of-context snippet? ThatÂs a largely rhetorical response and I am open to better suggestions. Steve Verdon took this approach: IÂm calling you out. I bet you simply copied those quotes from a website and canÂt produce more expansive quotes by those authors. That is, IÂd like to see the sentences before and after those quotes. If youÂve actually read those authors and have the books this should be easy. If youÂve just copied and pasted, then you canÂt and your claims are suspect.
Yes, it is tough to deal with, because quote miners are actually using the dispute inside the Darwinian community to illustrate that maybe, just maybe, their theory has flaws. We can quote Gould because he has essentially admitted that the evidence isn`t what it should be to support Darwin. It is not a matter of taking it out of context-it`s a matter of actually telling people what they themselves are saying.
Bafflegab, Equation Meisters (BEMs) - Like this guy, who referenced a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) study that claimed to prove the earth is less than 10,000 years old, by studying helium rate diffusion. Yikes. I spent a whole weekend reading the YEC study, reading the technical debunking of it, and then summarizing the de-bunking. If you want to respond to stuff like this, be prepared to spend some time. A response of everyone knows thatÂs stupid is unpersuasive. (The BEMÂs are not the lazy Creationists; see Comment #13 for his rebuttal of my summary of the rebuttal of the YEC study. )
Of course, a guy like Der Kommisar loves someone who makes silly claims because it bolsters his characterization of non-Darwinists as hillbillies. The Left and the Mainstream Media do this all of the time. Classic tactic.
Michael the Thumper - A Creationist with a good sense of humor. A guy who readily admits I believe God made the whole thing. A guy who will occasionally pose a subtly needling and accurate question about an evolutionary post, e.g. Do cladistic relationships necessarily imply descent? A guy who knows when another Creationist is getting his ass kicked. In my experience, Michael the Thumper is unique.
Riiight. I`ve tried to joke with these over-earnest people repeatedly, and it almost always goes right over their heads. If you want to address a lack of a sense of humor...
RESOURCES
TalkOrigins.org - This is an excellent resource. But donÂt overuse it. An endless list of TalkOrigins links will not persuade anyone of anything. Also TalkOrigins.org is a little over-used. Some Creationists have seen it before and their eyes glaze. ItÂs most effective to understand the points made at TalkOrigins and re-state them in your own words. By all means, though, if you want to reference it for a detailed list, do so. For example, There are thousands of transitional fossils. See this list at TalkOrigins.org.)
(Thousands of transitional fossils? Why aren`t these reported; certainly the media is pro-Darwin! That is because they have nothing that isn`t open to serious debate, and they know it!)
Answers in Genesis (AiG) - This Creationist debunks a number of Creationist arguments. ThatÂs right, it has a section, Arguments Creationists should NOT use. I was surprised at the laziness of Creationists. Most of them are not fraudulent, evil geniuses who have thought this all through. Far more likely, the internet Cretionist is just some bozo tossing out scraps that he remembers reading somewhere. Many of them use arguments already discredited by Answers in Genesis (AiG), a leading Creationist website. Bookmark this AiG link. When any Creationist trots out an argument dismissed by AiG, lower the boom.
Notice the bile, the anger that Der Kommisar has against those who disagree about a scientific matter. He takes this very personally.
So get out there and pull their whitie-tighties all the way up, over their Creationist heads.
Unfortunately for our friend here, his head (and many of his comrads) would be better served residing in his undies, as it currently resides in a place suffering from a dearth of sunlight.
So you see, the Darwinist is admonished to be ever on the offensive; audacity, audacity, audacity! Don`t actually discuss things in a civil manner, but attack your opponent, keep him on the defensive, accuse, isolate, destroy.
Here are Alinski`s rules:
Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Sound familiar?
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
That`s why they rarely discuss anything but Darwin.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
That`s why these guys try to drag the discussion into technicalities and technical jargon.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
`Nuff said!
Rule 5: Ridicule is manÂs most potent weapon. ItÂs hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
We`ve seen plenty of that! Just Google my name!
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. If your people arenÂt having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.
Hello, Panda`s Thumb crowd!
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of OÂHare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the cityÂs reputation.
Dover, anyone?
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, Okay, what would you do?
Sound familiar?
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. DonÂt try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
What do they do to anyone who dares dispute the god Darwin?
Of course, these rules only work against those who are ignorant of what they are doing. Always keep these in mind when dealing with a radical Darwinist, or a member of the Climate Change Gang Greens, or a radical feminist or what-have-you. These are the tactics employed by all Left-Wing groups, and Darwin`s Tabernacle Choir is on the front lines with them.
I suspect that part of why they get so angry with me is that I know what they are up to, and their usual tricks aren`t working. These guys spend all their free time pestering people who disagree with their deity, and their methods generally remain the same, as they are using the same talking points. They keep use the same playbook because it usually works, and it usually works because many of their opponents aren`t aware of the tricks they are playing. Knowledge of their methods will go a long way.
(By the way, it should be pointed out that Darwinists never, ever refer to it as Intelligent Design-it is always creationism. We should not let them get away with that. I propose calling THEIR theory Perpetual Motion, because it presupposes a complete reversal of entropy.)
Anyway, I hope everyone finds this analysis illuminating. I`m feeling a bit autocratic, too, so may not allow any comments from my admirers-unless I find them amusing.
Now, don`t misunderstand me; there are good conservatives who are atheists, and good people who are liberal atheists. These are the people you rarely hear from, because they understand that people disagree, and that a person of Faith has arrived at their views through good will, just as they have theirs. I can think of a couple of really good guys in the Conservative Movement who are unbelievers-Christopher Orlet (who I link to frequently) and Shawn Macoumber come to mind. They have decided that they don`t believe in God, but they don`t hold it against those who do. Not so with many, particularly many of the members of Darwin`s Tabernacle Choir; these are the militants, those who are angry with God, and wish to kill him. The Kommisar is one such, despite being conservative on a number of issues.
At any rate, he put out this list of talking points, which bear a remarkable resemblance to Saul Alinski`s ``Rules for Radicals``. I have reprinted it here, with my own commentary in bold, so that you can see what these guys are up to, and why they operate the way they do. You will see much of these principles applied by my detractors here at Birdblog.
The Wedgie Document
Arguing with Creationists on the Internet
The Creationists have their Wedge Document. Rational people need one too. Here it is, The Wedgie Document, a guide to arguing with Creationists on the Internet.
Note the dripping sarcasm; he refuses to admit that intelligent people can disagree.
The purpose of The Wedgie Document is very specific: to provide rational people (defenders of science, evilutionists, whatever) with guidance in presenting persuasive arguments in internet debates. Someone once observed that 90% of the people reading these debates have their minds made up. ItÂs the other 10% of potentially open-minded readers that this document will help you address. A related purpose, at least for me, is to learn. A few months ago, I didnÂt know what abiogenesis was, nor falsifiability, nor helium-rate diffusion. If you engage in fact-based debates, you canÂt help but learn.
Update: The day after I wrote this, the NYTimes reported on a similar guide for museum docents. Plagiarists
I know this is nitpicking, but he forgot to use spellcheck.
TACTICS
Play offense - Find a logical inconsistency or gross factual error in his argument (easy to do) and hammer it. Avoid playing defense. By that I mean it is not possible to define, illustrate, and defend the whole of evolutionary biology in a blog post or comment thread. I donÂt mean to avoid specifics. Factual details are good! Find a huge mistake (or 2-3 mistakes) in his argument and point them out. The typical Creationist will defend them for a long, long time.
Now we get to the meat of it! Play offense-this is the age-old leftist tactic. Do not let your opponent have their say, put them on the defensive and keep them there. That is why Darwinists come in swarms, firing from different angles. They want to get their opponents into a urinating contest. Of course, those who disagree with Darwin likewise cannot defend the whole of their position in a blog post, and they seek to exploit that. This is straight out of Saul Alinski, or Joseph Goebbles. Vintage Fascist tactics.
Stay focused - The typical Creationist will throw the kitchen sink at you. Focus on whatever topic(s) you want. Trying to respond to a lengthy list is a waste of time. Your own blog posts should be similarly focused on some specific evo topic or theme.
This is an interesting point; what he is saying is that the Darwinist should not respond when holes are poked in his theory. Stay focused means stick to the talking points.
Be factual. DonÂt insult him or call him names - Tearing apart his argument will do it for you. Remember that any personal attacks or nastiness plays to his persecution complex, The big bad evilutionists are trying to stifle free inquiry and were mean to me. Obviously, personal attacks are counter-productive to the purposes of the Wedgie Document. In particular, I would not call him a fraud and a liar; I credit most of them with sincerity. They are not lying; they are mis-informed.
Now here is something that none of these people are capable of doing. Invariably, when their arguments disintegrate they turn to insults and name calling. Run a google search on my name, and you will see a steady stream of adjectives such as idiot, moron, fool, etc. Why? Because they quickly grow frustrated that they cannot win the argument. This happens to anybody who disputes Darwin-just ask Tom Bethell. Der Kommisar himself always refers to those who disagree as morons.
Questions - YouÂre under no obligation to answer his questions. You are playing offense. You should enter the discussion with a focused question or challenge (presumably unanswerable by the Creationist). He will doggedly defend it for a while, then will demand that you answer HIS questions. Nope. You donÂt need to say it in so many words, but I asked you first is a very fair stance. But if you want to answer it, be prepared. If youÂve written a blog post about trilobites and punctuated equilibrium, you do not necessarily have to engage a challenge about information theory.
Again, more obfuscation and attack. Play offense because you cannot defend your position! Remember, HE is the one who claims the case is closed, that the science is indisputable. It`s up to the Darwinist to satisfy the onlooker, not the other way around. We merely point out the inconsistencies and fallacies of the theory.
Google him - If he throws out something new, Google it before you respond. Creationists are lazy. More than half the time, a factual rebuttal is available right there on the internet.
This is ``opposition research``; digging dirt on the enemy. More fascism. I can`t complain about researching your rebuttal, but two can play at that game!
Lengthy comments - Some blog commenters go on and on and on. DonÂt. No one is going to read it. Make a brief, readable point, no more than 4 or 5 paragraphs, maximum. If you need a link or two, for further supporting details, thatÂs fine.
Know victory - When the creationist says something like, `Well, science doesnÂt have all the answers and we have a lot to learn,`` thatÂs as close to admitting error that you will ever see on the internet. Let it go at that point.
That is a classic Leftist tactic-never, ever admit you may not be absolutely correct. This is an attempt at intimidation, an absolute refusal to give a single inch. Most ``Creationists`` don`t want to spend eternity arguing with some rabid atheist-they have lives to live, and prefer to settle things amicably. Not so with the fire-breathing Darwinist (or any other such Leftist); they will proclaim victory if you let them off the hook.
Netiquette - If you are commenting at a CreationistÂs blog, you should remember that you are like a guest in his home. Not only should your exchanges be as polite as possible, but (more importantly) you should recognize that any blogger reasonably expects to get the last word on his own blog.
Never happens! I generally lose interest and let these guys yap like scalded puppies, because I would spend eternity arguing with them to no end. Why? Because they cannot, will not permit opinions that deviate from theirs. Why? Because it is all about Atheism, about the use of science as a tool to club religion-especially Christianity. They simply cannot allow the impression that they have lost the argument, because this is the only way they can justify their view.
TYPES OF CREATIONISTS
Unpersuadables - Creationists tend to be more religious, less well-educated, and more inclined to Âconspiracy theory type thinking than most. They are seriously unpersuadable. Like all netizens on any side of any issue, they are completely stubborn. Almost all creationists are Unpersuadables.
``More religious, less well-educated``? Hardy, har, har! If there were ever examples of True Believers, it is the Darwinists. Also, one of the Liberal/Darwinist enticements is the anointing; once you become one of them you are the elite. It is a monstrous snobbery which rejects anyone, no matter how well educated or thoughtful, as a hillbilly rube if they disagree. Again, this is intellectual fascism.
NOT Creationists - How often have you read the following? I am Not a Creationist but just a Sober Critic of Evolution? Such a statement is routinely followed by a lengthy re-hash of the oldest, most discredited Creationist nonsense. Apply the duck test comrades. If it looks like a Creationist, quacks like a Creationist, and walks like a Creationist, then it is a Creationist. Do not let the `NOT Creationists` get away with that.
Here we have the Big Lie. Apply the duck test yourself, Comrad! As the Bard once said ``Me thinks he doth protest too much``; the fact that YOU are disingenous about what it is you believe, and why, does nothing to impugn my veracity. You refuse to admit that there are people who believe in, say, Directed Panspermia, or even neo-Lamarckianism. What, pray tell, was Luschenko?
There are ample reasons to disagree with your pet theory-that does not a Creationist make (and, by the way, notice how they refuse to use the preferred term Intelligent Design Theorist? I`m all for calling them Perpetual Motion Theorists, since their Belief stems from something from nothing.) Why don`t YOU admit that you are using Darwin to justify your Religious beliefs?
Quote Miners - This is tough to deal with in a comment thread. By definition, the Creationist is taking something that Stephen J. Gould or another scientist said out of context. Trying to fit a misleading two-sentence quote into context, in a comment thread is not easy. You might try: On matters of evolution, shall we accept all that SJ Gould said as authoritative, or just this one out-of-context snippet? ThatÂs a largely rhetorical response and I am open to better suggestions. Steve Verdon took this approach: IÂm calling you out. I bet you simply copied those quotes from a website and canÂt produce more expansive quotes by those authors. That is, IÂd like to see the sentences before and after those quotes. If youÂve actually read those authors and have the books this should be easy. If youÂve just copied and pasted, then you canÂt and your claims are suspect.
Yes, it is tough to deal with, because quote miners are actually using the dispute inside the Darwinian community to illustrate that maybe, just maybe, their theory has flaws. We can quote Gould because he has essentially admitted that the evidence isn`t what it should be to support Darwin. It is not a matter of taking it out of context-it`s a matter of actually telling people what they themselves are saying.
Bafflegab, Equation Meisters (BEMs) - Like this guy, who referenced a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) study that claimed to prove the earth is less than 10,000 years old, by studying helium rate diffusion. Yikes. I spent a whole weekend reading the YEC study, reading the technical debunking of it, and then summarizing the de-bunking. If you want to respond to stuff like this, be prepared to spend some time. A response of everyone knows thatÂs stupid is unpersuasive. (The BEMÂs are not the lazy Creationists; see Comment #13 for his rebuttal of my summary of the rebuttal of the YEC study. )
Of course, a guy like Der Kommisar loves someone who makes silly claims because it bolsters his characterization of non-Darwinists as hillbillies. The Left and the Mainstream Media do this all of the time. Classic tactic.
Michael the Thumper - A Creationist with a good sense of humor. A guy who readily admits I believe God made the whole thing. A guy who will occasionally pose a subtly needling and accurate question about an evolutionary post, e.g. Do cladistic relationships necessarily imply descent? A guy who knows when another Creationist is getting his ass kicked. In my experience, Michael the Thumper is unique.
Riiight. I`ve tried to joke with these over-earnest people repeatedly, and it almost always goes right over their heads. If you want to address a lack of a sense of humor...
RESOURCES
TalkOrigins.org - This is an excellent resource. But donÂt overuse it. An endless list of TalkOrigins links will not persuade anyone of anything. Also TalkOrigins.org is a little over-used. Some Creationists have seen it before and their eyes glaze. ItÂs most effective to understand the points made at TalkOrigins and re-state them in your own words. By all means, though, if you want to reference it for a detailed list, do so. For example, There are thousands of transitional fossils. See this list at TalkOrigins.org.)
(Thousands of transitional fossils? Why aren`t these reported; certainly the media is pro-Darwin! That is because they have nothing that isn`t open to serious debate, and they know it!)
Answers in Genesis (AiG) - This Creationist debunks a number of Creationist arguments. ThatÂs right, it has a section, Arguments Creationists should NOT use. I was surprised at the laziness of Creationists. Most of them are not fraudulent, evil geniuses who have thought this all through. Far more likely, the internet Cretionist is just some bozo tossing out scraps that he remembers reading somewhere. Many of them use arguments already discredited by Answers in Genesis (AiG), a leading Creationist website. Bookmark this AiG link. When any Creationist trots out an argument dismissed by AiG, lower the boom.
Notice the bile, the anger that Der Kommisar has against those who disagree about a scientific matter. He takes this very personally.
So get out there and pull their whitie-tighties all the way up, over their Creationist heads.
Unfortunately for our friend here, his head (and many of his comrads) would be better served residing in his undies, as it currently resides in a place suffering from a dearth of sunlight.
So you see, the Darwinist is admonished to be ever on the offensive; audacity, audacity, audacity! Don`t actually discuss things in a civil manner, but attack your opponent, keep him on the defensive, accuse, isolate, destroy.
Here are Alinski`s rules:
Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Sound familiar?
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
That`s why they rarely discuss anything but Darwin.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
That`s why these guys try to drag the discussion into technicalities and technical jargon.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
`Nuff said!
Rule 5: Ridicule is manÂs most potent weapon. ItÂs hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
We`ve seen plenty of that! Just Google my name!
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. If your people arenÂt having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.
Hello, Panda`s Thumb crowd!
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of OÂHare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the cityÂs reputation.
Dover, anyone?
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, Okay, what would you do?
Sound familiar?
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. DonÂt try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
What do they do to anyone who dares dispute the god Darwin?
Of course, these rules only work against those who are ignorant of what they are doing. Always keep these in mind when dealing with a radical Darwinist, or a member of the Climate Change Gang Greens, or a radical feminist or what-have-you. These are the tactics employed by all Left-Wing groups, and Darwin`s Tabernacle Choir is on the front lines with them.
I suspect that part of why they get so angry with me is that I know what they are up to, and their usual tricks aren`t working. These guys spend all their free time pestering people who disagree with their deity, and their methods generally remain the same, as they are using the same talking points. They keep use the same playbook because it usually works, and it usually works because many of their opponents aren`t aware of the tricks they are playing. Knowledge of their methods will go a long way.
(By the way, it should be pointed out that Darwinists never, ever refer to it as Intelligent Design-it is always creationism. We should not let them get away with that. I propose calling THEIR theory Perpetual Motion, because it presupposes a complete reversal of entropy.)
Anyway, I hope everyone finds this analysis illuminating. I`m feeling a bit autocratic, too, so may not allow any comments from my admirers-unless I find them amusing.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 1:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home