Sunday, April 27, 2014

Saul Alinsky's Thirteen Rules For Radicals



  Saul Alinsky was a modern day Niccolo Machiavelli. This is the opening paragraph to his 1971 book Rules For Radicals. "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away" Alinsky was born on January 30, 1909 and dropped dead of a heart attack on June 12 1972. He was born into an orthodox Jewish family but became an agnostic. He became probably the most successful community organizer of all time. Remember that Obama got his start as a community organizer. Many leftists were influenced by his writings, including Hillary and Bill Clinton along with Barack Obama. Obama never knew him but he was influenced nevertheless. Leftists were depressed about their lack of influence at the Democratic Convention of 1968. They campaigned for the anti-war Democrat Eugene McCarthy and rioted in the streets of Chicago during the Democratic National Convention. The following is the advice that Alinsky gave these radicals. "Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing----but this will only swing people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates". This is exactly what they did. In 1972 they nominated George McGovern but America was not ready for someone as far to the left as McGovern. 

  Nixon won by one of the biggest landslides in American history. However the left had entrenched themselves in the Democratic Party and has built on that power ever since. By using Alinsky's tactics they have taken over our school boards, academia, entertainment, our media, our judicial system and much of our government. They have done this by following Alinsky's advice in the prologue of Rules For Radicals. " If the real radical finds that having long hair sets up psychological barriers to communication and organization, he cuts his hair. If I were organizing in an orthodox Jewish community I would not walk in there eating a ham sandwich, unless I wanted to be rejected so I could have an excuse to cop out. As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be---it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.".

  The following are eight goals of the left that have been attributed to Alinsky but Snopes.com disputes this. I agree with Snopes that these goals did not originate with Alinsky but I believe they are being fulfilled everyday in this country by using Alinski's tactics. One could argue that the Democrats have pursued these policies since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson and the progressive era,

1. Health care--Control health care and you control the people.

2. Poverty-- Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3. Debt--Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to raise taxes and this will produce more poverty.

4. Gun Control--Remove the ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5. Welfare--Take control of every aspect of their lives (food, housing, and income).

6. Education--Take control of what people read and listen to--take control of what children learn in school.

7. Remove the belief in God from government and schools.

8. Class Warfare--Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to spread the wealth by taking from the rich through taxes with the support of the poor. 


The following are Alinsky's thirteen rules for radicals.

1. Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

2. Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.

3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

4. Make the enemy 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.

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.

7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings.

8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

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. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying " You're right --- we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.

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

I want to give my opinion now about some of these rules. First of all from an ethical standpoint I think that the whole premise of these rules is immoral. I do not believe that the ends justify the means unless your end is to save human life. For example if I were hiding Jews in my house from Hitler it would not be wrong in my view to lie to the Nazi's in order to protect them. Short of a similar scenario the ends do not justify the means. The whole tone of these Rules for Radicals as Machiavelli's suggestions to the Medici family in the Prince are satanic to me. The following are the character traits of satan and see if you see anything that you can relate to these Rules for Radicals. There are 22 names for satan or characteristics of satan given in the Bible.




1. Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12). This is Satan’s name prior to his fall, it means “star of the morning” and “shining one”.

2. Satan (Mark 4:15). This name simply means adversary. An adversary is an opponent, rival, or enemy.

3. The devil (Matthew 4:1-11). This name means slanderer. A slanderer is someone who makes a false, malicious statement, especially one which is injurious to one’s reputation.


4. The prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2). This refers to Satan as he dominates his worldly human subjects.

5.The god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4). This is simply a reference to Satan, revealing his rule over the present darkness of this world.

6. The king of death (Hebrews 2:14). This means that Satan has the power of death.

7. The prince of this world (John 12:31). This means that Satan is the ruler of this world.

8. The ruler of darkness (Ephesians 6:12). This name reveals Satan’s rule, authority, and cosmic power over the present darkness of this world.

9. Leviathan (Isaiah 27:1). This name is a description of a powerful dragon-like creature.

10. The dragon (Revelation 12:7). This is another name used for Satan, the accuser.

11. The deceiver (Revelation 20:10). This name reveals Satan as one who lies to trick or mislead.

12. Apollyon (Revelation 9:11). This name means a destroyer. A destroyer is someone who causes damage beyond use or repair.

13. Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24). This name for Satan means “the lord of flies,” or “the lord of dung,” or “the dung god.”

14. Belial (2 Corinthians 6:15). This name is the personification of all that is evil.
\
15. The wicked one (Matthew 13:38). This name reveals that Satan is evil or mischievous by nature.


16. The tempter (1Thessalonians 3:5). This name reveals that Satan does provoke to cause people to do wrong.

17. The accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:10). This means Satan charges or places blame or fault on a follower of Christ.

18. An angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). This name reveals Satan as a deceiver.

19. A liar (John 8:44, Genesis 3:4-5). This name reveals that Satan intentionally gives false information.

20. A murderer (John 8:44). This name reveals that Satan deliberately kills.

21. The enemy (Matthew 13:39). This name reveals that Satan is hostile towards, feels hatred towards, opposes the interests of, and intends to hurt God Himself. 

22. A roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8). This name describes Satan’s destructive threat.

I want to now analyze Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and how Republicans, Conservatives and Christians can combat them.

Rule #1- Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

I want to use a history lesson to illustrate how this tactic can be defeated. During the Civil War the South had a population of 9 million people. Five million whites and 4 million blacks of which most were slaves. The South was mostly agricultural with little heavy industry.It's rail system compared to the North was vastly inferior. The North on the other hand had 22 million people of whom the vast majority were white. It had an abundance of heavy industry. It's agricultural capacity was even greater than the South and it had thousands of miles of railroad track. Yet the Civil War lasted four long bloody years costing billions in today's dollars and costing almost one million lives. The war in my opinion should not have lasted over a year had the North had the right Generals leading the army and the right strategy from the very start. The reason the North failed, especially in the Eastern theater, was that Northern commanders operated from a position of weakness. They always outnumbered Lee but they attributed more power to Lee than he actually possessed. For example McClellan could have defeated Lee if he had just used the same strategy in 1862 as Grant employed in 1864. Grant knew that he outnumbered Lee. Had much more food and resources at his disposal than Lee. Lee defeated Grant in every battle from May of 1864 until the very last days of the Civil War when Lee was simply overwhelmed by attrition losing at Five Forks, Saylors Creek and Appomattox. However Grant simply used his strength in numbers and persistence to defeat Lee. No matter if he lost a battle against Lee he never let up on the pressure. Lee could not rest, find food for his men or have the means to re-enforce his army. McClellan on the other hand had as many troops and resources at his disposal as Grant but he was always working under the assumption that he was outnumbered by first Joseph E. Johnston and later Robert E. Lee. 

There are twice as many conservatives in this country, even today, as there are liberals. Even among Democrats. I am not talking about the Democratic leadership but the average Joe Democrat that you meet on the street. If you can get them to have a reasonable non-partisan discussion the conservative might discover that they agree on more than they realize. Issues like illegal immigration, gay marriage, national defense, government spending, taxation, government regulations, gun control, welfare, etc. etc. Even black people are conservative, but they vote Democratic because of a misplaced distrust of the Republican Party fostered by the race merchants such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Oprah Winfrey just to name a very few. The Democrat leadership however is great at driving a wedge between conservatives and the average Democrat on the street. They do this by using Alinsky's tactics. Reagan was a leader that realized the fact that conservatives outnumbered liberals. He was a political Ulysses S. Grant. He appealed to a cross section of the American people. Remember the Reagan Democrats. Conservatives easily triumphed over liberals in government during the Reagan years because we had real leadership. Alinsky, just like satan, can be easily defeated. The most dangerous threat to a liberal is a conservative leader or leaders that realize that we are in the majority and operates on that principle. The most dangerous person to satan is the Christian that realizes that he has an advocate in Jesus Christ and satan holds no power over them. Alinsky's first Rule for Radicals implies Satan's characteristic of a roaring lion (1-Peter 5:8)


Rules # 4 &5-8 and 9- Number 4- Make the enemy 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. Number 5- Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. Number 8-Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. Number 9- The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

The characteristics of satan that most apply to these four rules are the following. Of course the name satan, Mark 4:15, which means rival or enemy. The devil, Matthew 4:1-11, which means slanderer. The prince of power of the air, Ephesians 2:2, which refers to satan as he dominates his worldly human subjects. The god of this age, 2 Corinthians 4:4. Revealing satan's rule over the present darkness of this world. The dragon, Revelation 12:7 , meaning the accuser of the brethren, or the accuser. The deceiver, Revelation 20:10, one who likes to trick or mislead. A liar, John 8:44, he who gives false information. Actually all of the characteristics of Satan could apply to all of Alinsky's rules but you get the picture.

I saw Alinsky's Rules for Radicals being applied with a vengeance all through the Clinton years and many political scandals of that period. The Democrats applied them all during the Bush years and to this point in the Obama years with great success. Primarily because most Conservatives, Republicans and Christians do not know what they are up against and therefore they have no defense against it. For example whenever the right goes after the left the left counters with an accusation. Whenever you accuse satan of something he is instantly pointing his finger back at you. That is why he is called the accuser of the brethren. For example the Clinton's were breaking multiple laws and ethical standards routinely in Arkansas and Washington but they were always digging up dirt on the right so they could throw it back in their faces. Much of this dirt was innocuous compared to the continual sins of the Clinton's but it was a distraction from the real issues of corruption on their part, The media, like today, were perfectly willing partners in this duplicity. No group of people are capable of being perfect. Christians should realize this more than any group out there. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The letter of the law is essential, both in a secular world and in a spiritual world, because it defines what is illegal and what is sin. The spirit of the law defines justice in the secular world and in the spiritual it is unmerited favor or grace. For example in the secular world the letter of the law says that it is illegal to steal. If two offenders appear before a judge guilty of shoplifting but one was a scared teenager who did a stupid thing on a dare and stole a 5.00 dollar bracelet and the other is a professional shoplifter who has stolen 5,000 dollars worth of clothes and other items under the spirit of the law the teenager would not receive as harsh of a sentence as the professional shoplifter even though the letter of the law says that both are guilty of theft. Under grace both the big sinner and small sinner can receive salvation.

Regardless of what you might think of Paula Jones she had a legitimate lawsuit against Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. The Supreme court unanimously agreed with her and allowed her to sue a sitting president. Judge Susan Weber Wright ruled that her case did not fit the parameters of sexual harassment That is because Paula was not in the position as a state employee under then Governor Clinton to be denied promotions, benefits or work in a hostile work environment. Clinton had State Troopers initiate sexual liaisons with various women while he was governor. This was the scandal that came to be called "Trooper gate". One day State Troopers approached Paula Jones who took her to a hotel in Little Rock to meet with Clinton. There it was alleged by Paula Jones that Clinton exposed himself to her and asked for oral sex. She refused and returned to work shaken by the experience. She confided in some close female friends but otherwise she decided to keep silent about the matter. That is until she saw her name listed in the American Spectator that broke the story that came to be known as "Trooper gate". That is when she decided to sue Bill Clinton in order to clear her name. From the start Jones was characterized as trailer trash. Any woman who did not cooperate with Bill Clinton or he could not buy their silence were ridiculed. Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Wiley, Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones just to name a few. The mainstream Democratic media and the Clinton's turned the Monica Lewinsky affair into nothing but an inappropriate sexual affair. The real issue was obstruction of justice. Clinton perjured himself, lied to the American people, and used Monica Lewinsky to encourage Linda Tripp to perjure herself. The Clinton's disparaged Linda Tripp, even making fun of her appearance through their cronies on Saturday Night Live. They accused the independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr of wrongdoing. Clinton was guilty of the very same thing as Richard Nixon, obstruction of justice. The difference was that Nixon faced a hostile press, Clinton had a press that assisted in the commission of his crime by convincing the American people it was just about sex rather than impeding an American citizen from pursuing justice in the American judicial system. I use this one example to illustrate Alinski's Rules for Radicals at work by the Clinton's. They were also applied in Clinton's impeachment trial when Larry Flynt of Hustler magazine exposed past sexual indiscretions of certain Republicans which were distractions from the real issue which was obstruction of justice rather than just a sexual affair. It also employs Alynski's rule to make them live up to their own rules which implies to me that the Clinton's had no ethical standards to live up to. 

  Finally, I want to talk about rules 10 and 13. Rule #10 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. Rule # 13- Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Everyday we hear of a new initiative from the left. Assaults on our religious freedoms and freedom of speech as protected by the 1st Amendment or our gun rights that are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Pressure from homosexual rights groups trying to force their lifestyle down our throats. Radical Feminist groups, animal rights, radical environmentalists and civil rights groups, or supposed black leaders like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton who are constantly playing the race card for their own personal gain. Pressure from politicians led by people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid and the mainstream media or what I like to call the state run media. It is constant and our side has virtually no defense against it because we have no real leadership. Many conservatives like myself realize what has to be done but most politicians are too corrupt and weak to be real leaders. When they use Alinski's 13th rule Pick the target, freeze it and polarize it so-called conservatives back down. We are rooting for them to stand their ground but usually they never do. For example when Phil Robertson stood his ground after being criticized for expressing his opinion about homosexuals he was called anti-gay and fired by A&E Network. Phil stood his ground and conservatives rallied around him and A&E backed down. By standing firm he gave those of us who have similar views, because we make up the majority, to make our power felt. 

  The same was true in the case of Chick-Filet. Everyday average citizens rallied around them to the point that Chick-Filet is one of the largest fast food chains in America. Liberals are able to freeze, polarize, and personalize their target only if their target cares about what the left says about them. If the target holds a valid opinion such as that of Phil Robertson, that is based on valid religious beliefs and common sense, then he has nothing to be sorry for. The way that the left polarizes and personalize is to call people names. For example if you are white and do not support quotas in hiring that does not make you a racist. If you oppose Barack Obama that does not necessarily make you a racist. If you criticize Jesse Jackson or if you thought that George Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin, or if you thought that O.J. Simpson was guilty, you are not necessarily a racist. If you are a male against abortion, government funded abortions, government funded birth control, or women in combat you are not necessarily a sexist. If you are against homosexual marriage, homosexuals in the military, and homosexuals being able to adopt children, you are not necessarily a homophobe. The left uses name calling to shut people up, and to shut down legitimate debate because their side cannot win the argument in a one on one debate. They can only win by bullying. Most people are sensitive and conscientious. Nobody wants to be thought of as a racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, or any other kind of "phobe". The key to successfully defending the conservative position and yourself is simple. First, you must be secure in what you believe. Defend what you know to be true and don't be rattled if you are presented with information that seems to be damaging to your position. Don't try to defend what you don't know. After further research you will usually find the answer. If you realize that you are wrong don't be afraid to change your mind but only after you are overwhelmed with evidence to the contrary. I have found that in most cases liberals are very uninformed and many border on outright stupidity. I can count on one hand those liberals that have ever given me a real debate and a run for my money. I respect these people because we had a legitimate exchange of ideas without name-calling or argument. We disagreed agreeably and parted amiably. 

  With most liberals the conversation usually goes like this. When you ask a liberal a valid question that he or she cannot answer, a favorite tactic of theirs is to change the subject by them asking you a question that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Don't allow them to change the subject. Keep pounding home the point. When they start throwing out names like racist, homophobe, sexist or whatever don't let it bother you. Just laugh it off. I have at one time or another been called every name in the book but most liberals know they are not going to roll me over by the time we part company. The bottom line is that you cannot allow them to silence you. That is their goal. We outnumber them. It is time for us to tell them to "shut up and sit down" every time they try to bully us with their ridiculous notions of political correctness in our schools, our courts, in government, the media, or wherever political correctness raises it's ugly head in society. We are a massive army waiting to be led but we have no leadership. Napoleon once said that there is no such thing as bad soldiers, only bad generals. 

                 


         





       

No comments:

Post a Comment