The secret to mobilising masses

Hi everybody and welcome to Finance and Fury the Furious Friday edition. Today’s episode is the Stages of Socialism Part 3 – the series talking about politics.

The first episode was about the Fabians and their strategies, then we addressed the political spectrum and how nations shift along it over time

If you haven’t listened to those episodes it may be worthwhile catching back up or if politics isn’t your thing feel free to skip because I know it can be dry I Feel like the basics aren’t talked about enough, especially when it comes to passing laws etc. so sorry if it is dry but I find it interesting and I hope you do too Recap: So in the last episode, we talked about democracy and the transition to socialism: Getting the power to change the rules in democracy comes from the side with the most votes, and the ability to form legislative actions. In today’s episode, we will talk about how political change occurs in Australia, through legislative powers, and how to get power to legislate from numbers Also, run through How the population gets ‘mobilised’ as a voting block and increasing the numbers of people supporting Want to break down a few trends that are of increasing popularity in politics over the last few decades The Basics

The government has powers of control over the populace through judicial processes (Laws and the ability to enforce them)

How are they made? This is from the Legislative Branch of Government also known as Parliament House of Reps or Lower house – 150 members across electoral zones by equal weight of population Senate or Upper House – 76 members – Each state gets 12, NT and ACT get 2 each (both increase over time) They meet at Parliament house, Construction began in 1981 – Wanted ready 26 Jan 1988 – 200th Anniversary of Settlement It was expected to cost A$220 million and be ready in May, but it actually cost more than A$1.1 billion to build (5x) Laws: Bills introduced into House of Reps – 2 readings, house committee, changes, and amendments, voted on Senate, same process, the bill gets voted on and sent to the Governor-General to sign and put into law. Who is the Queen’s representative in Australia PEO (Parliamentary education office): About 200 bills are introduced into Parliament each year and about 90 percent are passed into law  Ranges from 264 (in 1992) to 12 (in 1907), and an average per year since 1901 is 108. The average has increased massively over the last 30 or so years 90% success rate is a pretty high success rate, there are a lot of laws If you want to make something a law you simply need enough votes. I.e. People voting for the Members of Parliament is how you get this done How to Mobilise the masses

Rules for Radicals (RFR) is a 1971 book by community activist and writer Saul D. Alinsky. The Rules and Tactics explain a lot of the decline in the political environment over the last 40 years with personal attacks and never-ending division

It is essentially how to successfully run a movement for change. A direct excerpt is “create a guide for future community organizers, to use in uniting low-income communities, or "Have-Nots", in order for them to gain power.” The book is compiled with the lessons he had learned throughout his experiences of community organising from 1939 –1971 Divided into ten chapters, and provides 10 lessons on how a community organisers can accomplish the goal of successfully uniting people with the power to effect change on a variety of issues Targeted at community organisers, the issues range from ethics, education, communication, and symbol construction  Use of symbol construction to strengthen the unity within an organisation, based on loyalty to a particular religious affiliation Reason being that, symbols by which communities could identify themselves created structured organizations that were easier to mobilise in implementing direct action. Find a common enemy for the community to be united against, the Us vs Them mentality. We see this a lot in politics, the tribal mentality Use of common enemy is a major theme of Rules for Radicals, purely as a uniting element in communities Before we start

Let’s go through what Alinsky wrote at the end of his personal acknowledgments in RFR:

‘Lest we forget (at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment) to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins, or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.’ – A.K.A Mr Satan and his kingdom was Hell This perfectly sums up his rules, as socialism creates a hell on earth, from history we see plenty of evidence Socialism has been implemented in dozens of countries and it has never worked, we encourage you to research for yourself Shows a certain narcissism in people that they think it will work when they try 13 rules in the book

We will go through the main themes on them, and combine some for time’s sake

“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear, and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. First step is to create an expertise, newly found field of studies and theory provides validation and allows study into what you want to change Few are ‘experts’ in this and then they can fall back on fictional authority Argument from authority: a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. If someone is an ‘expert’ you hope they are correct. But how do you know? A well-known fallacy, but it is used in a persuasive form even with unsound logic Claiming that something must be true because it is said by someone who is said to be an "authority" on the subject even though they might be wrong, or knowingly misleading. There are plenty of con-men all throughout history, all with ulterior motivations like money and fame Today is it backed up by the hijacking of science as 50% of studies published can’t be replicated by their own authors, and 70% can’t be replicated by another scientist The issue comes from funding models: authors must publish or die. The drive to get published, even if data isn’t conclusive It has reversed the scientific method as instead of trying to prove you are wrong, they only prove they are right. There is no assumption of being wrong and only that of working your way towards being correct, or else you won’t be getting published. If you want, check out the grievance studies. Some researchers published 14 fraudulent pieces of research deliberately and they got published “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. This is used to create confusion, fear, and retreat. The use of the strawman creates a false narrative outside of what person knows What about-ism conversation: Statement, rebuttal of facts, what about something else, all until you run out of rebuttals and become discredited. To combat this, ask them what they think and get them to explain their rationale. If they can’t verbalise it, there isn’t much of a conversation that can be had. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. One rule for thee and one rule for me, and it is easy to be immoral when you have no morals or just want to play mental gymnastics Pro-life or Choice, under the rules of the law killing a pregnant woman is double murder, and if you cause the death of a foetus it is still considered murder Woman’s march + Linda Sarsour with recent news showing she may have links to the Muslim Brotherhood "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" Quran 4:11 Racism redefined: a tweet from Linda saying there's no such thing as reverse racism. Racism is bigotry + power. The group that doesn't have power can't be racist. By the same logic, Nazi’s not racist before taking power in 1933? KKK not racist now? Estimates 5-8k members Moral or logical inconsistency is therefore encouraged under these rules - “Generally success or failure is a determinant of ethics.” – Saul. This is very representative in groups of “by any means necessary” in their name “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” - There is no defence. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. This is where facts and logic go out the window further, If you don’t have any way to counter a person’s argument you label them. After the ‘what about’ questions are finished, easy shut down any conversation to label them as something moral irreprehensible Racist, sexist or Homophobic, some of the more common ones, also Nazi’s gets used a lot Why call someone that? If it were true we should fight the Nazis, so to stop them violence is justified “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 Labels can turn into accusations, as seen in the Kavanaugh hearings. A supreme court judge nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused. This opened a lot of people’s eyes about the due process system. 4 woman accused him, one of which, Christine Blasey Ford’s letter, released day before vote (after 45 days), with no evidence got his reputation ruined without going through the proper judicial process Polarisation is at the core of the strategy. The narrative: if conservative, you hate minorities, women, the poor, the environment, and probably a half dozen other groups I've forgotten. If you have a different opinion, you are mobbed and socially ‘executed’. Because your opinion won’t be argued, just your slandered character is more effective People have been losing their jobs, being kicked off the internet, not being let into countries, even going to prison in the UK over having different opinions. Because that is now a crime “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” - Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. If you're spending all of your time refuting the charges that you're extreme, racist, hate women, and despise the poor, then you're losing. That's because some people will assume where there's smoke, there's fire, and disbelieve you no matter how good your explanation may be If you're busy defending yourself, you can't do much Scare Tactics, with online boycotts as a form of corporate compliance. Instead of having people who can freely express their opinions, you can be slandered and socially mobbed by people with differing ones. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” & “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. Emotionally based arguments, trying to claim the moral high ground through redefining the cause but self-interest - “Goals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ ‘Of the Common Welfare,’ ‘Pursuit of Happiness,’ or ‘Bread and Peace.'” – Saul Give a good feeling of virtu signalling, makes you feel good even though you have helped nobody Social media/internet has created occupational outrage, where you get easy dopamine hits Dopamine trigger from likes on posts, addiction to outrage is a vehicle to get the thing people crave now Notice that the majority of people offended are doing so on behalf of others? This should be a warning sign. Liking a post to end world hunger won’t do anything for the issue Don’t become old news, always a new campaign out there, always a new dopamine trigger. The addiction to causes “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. The problem - an inability to combat ideas with ideas Solution? To shut down the conversation, shutting down political opponents and attacking them with labels “I don’t talk to Nazi’s” – Antifa. They claim to be antifascists but if anyone is familiar with the history, they are behaving like the fascists. But rather than wearing brown they now wear black Stolen valour for the actually brave men who gave their lives to actually fight Fascist regimes and Nazis. If Trump were a dictator, wouldn’t the journalists be dead or in a camp now? Plus, he deported an actual surviving Nazi, who was 95, back to Germany “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” - Power is derived from 2 main sources, which are money and people. Democracy must build power from flesh and blood. If the organisation 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. This is why the very vocal minority is effective. There are 3 layers Eyes; organised a vast, mass-based organisation, parade it visibly before the enemy Ears; organisation is small, conceal the members in the dark but make the enemy think they are numerous Nose; if your organisation is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place through the use of violence You don’t need many people if majority stay silent. That’s how these rules come together via self-censorship from fear “Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.” – Saul. Basically saying, when you are a small organisation, you don’t have to act ethically to get what you want. Take away:

Be very worried about ‘community organisers’. Don’t just follow the crowd, the fear of being wrong or ridiculed shouldn’t control you

Think for yourself, if you are in the position to make up your own mind, all you need to do is learn more Problems shouldn’t be solved with emotions as emotions can be weaponised if misinformed Nature of Democracy, where emotions are a great selling tool. Especially the use of hate, it's very emotional and gets used quite a bit Drive hatred of others. What happens when Milo, Stefan Molyneux, and Lauren Southern come to Australia? May not agree with them but they have a right to speak still The connection with words and violence is used as a reason to shut them down. Their words spread hate (different ideas of what hate is) So violence is used to shut them down, to avoid violence. They become a self-fulfilling prophecy A brief overview of some elements being seen, now you are more informed. Being a good person know what you say is true and not trying to hurt anyone along the way. I may be wrong on something, but I’m not lying about it Don’t trust what I say is fact, go get a second opinion, just like a doctor. But something I say may be wrong, but if so, explain it instead of insult I want you to research for yourself. Find the truth about something, that is an absolute, can it be proven and or can it not? So in the next episode, we will look at a ‘Fair Go’ Australia. It’ll be a look at the policies to see if things are more equal or less. So we will go through a few reports that are coming up in these discussions and how Australia is actually equal and how legislation may change this.

Thank you for listening today, and enjoy the rest of your day.

Contact us over at the contact page here.