BRUTALLY HONEST: The Truly Evil Books, The Truly Evil Literature, The True Diabolical Tomes, Not The Ones You Would Suspect

We've all seen those movies where some book made of skin and the illustrations of demons and esoteric lettering apparently drawn in blood. Many of us have heard of the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey. Some of us may have seen the creations of the Necronomicon that likely were inspired by the fictional works of H.P. Lovecraft. We may have stumbled upon old books by Aleister Crowley that we found disturbing or exciting. Some of us may have read older translations of various bibles and have noted the passages that seem particularly evil by the standards we claim to hold today.

We may talk about the Satanic people, and the Luciferians. We may look for literature proving their evil deeds, or their interest in evil deeds.

We were not paying attention. The truly evil tomes and works of literature that have inspired far greater works of evil than any of those are fairly recent. They are right in front of us. They are spoken of fairly regularly in some circles and people hardly even blink. They believe they seem rather normal.

Of these there is one that has gained a lot of attention. It is a simple book called "Rules For Radicals" and was written by Saul D. Alinsky in 1971. It is a book admired by Hillary Clinton. This should not be surprising as Saul Alinsky was one of her mentors and she even wrote a Thesis on his works.

If you pay attention to her life and how she operates you can see the application of the teachings of this book at work.

Yet, that does not state why I am calling it evil. I have been aware of people applying these rules in many of the movements for some time now. It was only today that I truly came up with the realization that the teachings in this books are a better definition of evil than any of those books I referenced in the opening paragraph.

Why? We can read the rules and consider their applications and they truly are often powerful and effective. Yet, I think we forget to consider what it says about the personality, morality, and ethical behavior of the person that applies them. That perspective seems to be carefully ignored. It is an important one. For it is that simple change in perspective which reveals the book for the evil that it is.

Now I have been thinking on doing an in depth analysis of this book for some time. I may actually do that. That isn't what I wanted to focus on here. I wanted to touch on a couple of these rules and put a twist on the perspective and maybe get you looking at these rules from a different angle like I am now. I believe it shows a pretty dark force, and dark intent.

Now the rules as shown on the wiki page are these:

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."

Now I would encourage each of you to consider those rules. See how many different thoughts you can come up with about them. Saul Alinsky wrote and entire book on them so clearly he did more than simply list them.

One thing that is immediately obvious. They certainly have nothing to do with peace, or compromise. If those were the guiding principles a person lived by what would the nature of that person begin to manifest as. As someone who has read ALL of the books I've mentioned in this post I will say that those rules when seriously considered are the closest thing to tenants of an evil bible as I can find. The others are not nearly as insidious and are mostly for show.

Now I notice a rule here that I've often heard attributed to Saul Alinsky and it is actually the rule that lead me down this mental path today. It turns out the thing that lead me to write this post actually predates Saul Alinsky. Though I do think it very much shares the flavor and approach of his rules. It also is certainly something that Hillary and those she has trained do extensively. They've even indoctrinated large groups of people who employ this next step instinctually. I truly believe a large amount of people that employ it don't have any clue that they are employing it. That is perhaps why some of us can see the frequent hypocrisy, but they seem blind to it. (Antifa is one group that has a lot of people like this)

That rule is simply this:
"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty"

I have heard that Saul Alinsky was an advocate of this tactic though I've also found reference to it possibly being attributed to the Nazi Propaganda Master Joseph Goebbels.

I can tell you that Hillary has been employing this tactic regardless of where she got it for some time. So many of the things she casts blame at others for or accuses others of it is actually she that was doing these things. In many cases there is even evidence, but she is held to a double standard and is protected from evidence. That too may be changing though. The tides may be turning for her.

Consider that phrase carefully. That is what I did today.

If you are accusing someone of an action that you did. The accusation is generally made because it is a bad, illegal, or evil act.

If you are viewed as an authority figure it often works as that evil deed is attached to the accused target. Often they are treated as guilty before there is any actual proof other than the accusation. Sometimes they survive it. Sometimes their life is ruined just due to the vast sums they must spend on attorneys to defend themselves. That makes it even worse as far as I am concerned. Not only were they not guilty of what they were accused, they are destroyed and harmed by the accusation.

So the accuser that pointed at them actually commits bad, illegal, or evil acts and also takes down their opposition by blaming the act on them.

How often do people stop to think about the evil of the accuser?

That rule is steeped in evil. I do want to qualify that I am not religious in any organized sense of the word. So when I speak evil I am not tying it to some specific religious interpretation. If you must pick a religion for me the closest fit for me is called Deism and it is not known by many people. It was practiced by people like Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Payne, you may have heard of those people. A lot of Albert Einstein's writings related to God and such also seem very Deistic in nature. It doesn't seek the word of God/Creator/Catalyst in a book, or some revealed visions. It simply uses observation and sees the hand of creation written into reality around us, not in the word of man. That is the closest fit for me. The entire Simulation Hypothesis if it is real would actually fit nicely inside of Deism as well.

So when I speak of evil in this post. Let's see if I can define that.

Enslaving, forcing, or physically harming others. Accusations can lead to Laws being used against you and thus bringing the enforcement entities against you which applies force. The expense of defending yourself is also harmful.

It could be far more broad and encompass more than that. Yet that is simple enough for my current purposes.

This is a new idea for me. I am sure I'll continue thinking upon it for awhile and I simply wanted to share it. Some of you may find it takes your mind in new directions as well.

What is it they say "Knowing is half the battle"? Well, I now see the evil in some statements that I was kind of ignoring the evil of the accuser and their behavior as I focused on those they accused. I saw the false accusations often and was outraged and would speak up about the lies. That doesn't mean I stopped to seriously thinking about the accuser themselves. I can assure you that will no longer be the case.

---

Deism [1 | 2 | 3]
Joseph Goebbels [1 | 2 | 3]
Saul Alinsky and Hillary Clinton [1 | 2 | 3]
Anton LaVey [1 | 2 | 3]
Aleister Crowley [1 | 2 | 3]
Necronomicon [1 | 2 | 3]
Rules for Radicals PDF [1]