Saul D. AlinskyAmerican Psychopath
and his Rules For Radicals
Americans must be aware of the tactics American Marxist
are using to impose Communism in the United States.
Known as the "father of modern American radicalism," Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. Activist organizations teach his ideas widely today as a set of model behaviors, and they use these principles to create an emotional commitment to victory - no matter what.
In Rules for Radicals Saul Alinsky writes, "There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people.
They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution."
This is where President Barack Obama's campaign about "Change" comes from. He is not talking about positive change but rather the change outlined by his mentor, the Marxist, Saul Alinsky. Revolutionary change. Socialist change. Communist change. Hillary Clinton's college thesis was about canonizing Saul Alinsky, she brought full Alinsky tactics into national politics with the 'Clinton War Room'.
In order to reach his goal President Obama, with the help of the radical left, the media and the Democratic party, is setting the stage for this radical leftist change agenda. He and his supporters have demonized President Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, Christians and those who believe in America.
Obama believes, "the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends", even if that means lying, cheating and stealing. Obama will change the future.
Yes, change the future for the worst.
The Democrat party has been using a subdued version Alinsky since the early 1970's.
Excepts from Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky
Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have.
Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give.
Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves. For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose.
First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power.
Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does.
Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.
Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals explained
Union organizers are often highly trained. In many unions this training includes indoctrination in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."
Saul Alinsky was a ruthless radical organizer. He would stop at nothing to win. Before he passed away in 1972 he published a book called "Rules for Radicals" in which he outlined his power tactics and questionable ethics.
Anyone interested in staying, or becoming, Union Free, whether in an organizing campaign or in a decertification or deauthorization election, ought to become familiar with these rules.
This can be very valuable information. As one expert observer points out "Rules for Radicals are reversible and can be used against the Left."
Here's a brief summary of the rules. We are indebted to the Public Service Research Foundation for this information.
Rules for Power Tactics:
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from two main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4: "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. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: "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. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
RULE 11: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 12: "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. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 13: 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. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen". By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck. The target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target.
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability - where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well"? When you "freeze the target", you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.
Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.
The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community's segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system.
Attack, attack, attack:
Alinsky advised the radical activist to avoid the temptation to concede that his opponent was not "100 per cent devil," or that he possessed certain admirable qualities such as being "a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband." Such qualifying remarks, Alinsky said, "dilut[e] the impact of the attack" and amount to sheer "political idiocy
Given that the enemy was to be portrayed as the very personification of evil, against whom any and all methods were fair game, Alinsky taught that an effective organizer should never give the appearance of being fully satisfied as a result of having resolved any particular conflict via compromise. Any compromise with the "devil" is, after all, by definition morally tainted and thus inadequate. Consequently, while the organizer may acknowledge that he is pleased by the compromise as a small step in the right direction, he must make it absolutely clear that there is still a long way to go, and that many grievances still remain unaddressed.
The ultimate goal, said Alinsky, is not to arrive at compromise or peaceful coexistence, but rather to "crush the opposition," bit by bit. "A People's Organization is dedicated to eternal war", said Alinsky. "A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play. When you have war, it means that neither side can agree on anything. In our war against the social menaces of mankind there can be no compromise. It is life or death."
Alinsky warned the organizer to be on guard against the possibility that the enemy might offer him "a constructive alternative" aimed at resolving the conflict. Said Alinsky, "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.'
Such capitulation by the enemy would have the effect of diffusing the righteous indignation of the People's Organization, whose very identity is inextricably woven into the fight for long-denied justice; i.e., whose struggle and identity are synonymous. If the perceived oppressor surrenders or extends a hand of friendship in an effort to end the conflict, the crusade of the People's Organization is jeopardized. This cannot be permitted. Eternal war, by definition, must never end.
While Alinsky endorsed ruthlessness in waging war against the enemy, he was nonetheless mindful that certain approaches were more likely to win the hearts and minds of the people whose support would be crucial to the organizers' ultimate victory. Above all, he taught that in order to succeed, the organizer and his People's Organization needed to target their message toward the middle class. "Mankind," said Alinsky, "has been and is divided into three parts: the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores."
He explained that in America, the Have-a-Little, Want-Mores (i.e., members of the middle class) were the most numerous and therefore of the utmost importance. Said Alinsky: "Torn between upholding the status quo to protect the little they have, yet wanting change so they can get more, they [the middle class] become split personalities. Thermopolitically they are tepid and rooted in inertia. Today in Western society and particularly in the United States they comprise the majority of our population".
Because Alinsky was sensitive to criticism that he wasn't ethical, he also included a set of rules for the ethics of power tactics. You can see from these why his ethics were so frequently questioned.
Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:
1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.
2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.
11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."
These are just the highlights. There's obviously a lot more to it. Alinsky's book is still available in most college bookstores and on Amazon and is worth reading.
As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy's camp."