Rules for Radicals

I have always heard that if you want to beat your enemy you need to understand them. That being the case, I recently finished reading Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and I must say it was very enlightening. Disturbing, but enlightening. I must say I knew I was in knee deep before the book even started. It certainly opened my eyes to what was going on in the country. If you look at the where the 60's radicals went, it was into government and the radicals began their takeover of the United States. Almost everything coming from the left is straight out of "Rules for Radicals".

One of the first things that made me say "WHAT?" was Alinsky's praise for the devil. Yes, the devil. Alinsky praises the devil for being the first radical, and even though he got kicked out of Heaven, he had a kingdom in Hell. I couldn't believe that after that (which was actually before the book began) that any decent minded person could put any stock in the book. Alinsky sets up his book by claiming that all people are evil (at least that's how I understood it) and he states that you must take care of your neighbor, if you don't he will kill you in the middle of the night. So much for the notion of a civil society. Good thing we have the 2nd Amendment, come on over Mr. Neighbor, I'll share something with you.

Another aspect that I found disturbing was his motivation behind his call for change, his call for radicalism. He was not motivated by a social injustice, or racial inequality, or environmental concerns, corporate greed or even disagreement with the government. Alinsky's motivation was simply radicalization, he didn't want change for any purpose other than it was against the establishment. He didn't even need an issue, his theory was to create one. One of the stories he brags about is a neighborhood he helped organize. The people in the neighborhood had lost some of their social services so they went to Alinsky. Alinsky found out that all the people had to do was go to city hall and ask for the reinstatement of those services. What did he do? He didn't tell the people that how simple it was, he worked them into a frenzy and then went down to city hall screaming and yelling that they weren't leaving until those social services were given to the people. Alinsky didn't let the poor women behind the counter speak (she was trying to tell them that they were entitled to the services)until he hollered all we need is a yes or no answer. Of course her answer was yes, they were entitled to them. Bragging about lying to the people you are supposed to be helping and this is someone that should be followed? If the motivation was really to help the people, why not tell them? It's not about helping people, it's about destroying the system for the sake of destroying it. I could respect him if he was doing it for a moral and/or ethical reasons, but not to satisfy his own destructive ego.

Wait, there's even more disturbing info in this manual for radicals. The means to an end section. Alinsky states that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you get to the end. Lying, cheating and stealing are perfectly acceptable, just look at his "glorious" example above. Does that not disturb anyone else? Anything is acceptable if it gets you to the end you are seeking. Anything? Is that really what we want? No morals, no principles just lies, corruption and God knows what else. Didn't we all learn the Golden Rule? Has America lost it's religious foundation that much? In his "means to an end", Alinsky lays out a series of rules about the ethics of reaching an end. The first is one's concerns varies with their interest is the issue. The second is the ethics are dependent of those sitting in judgment. The third is that war justifies about any end. Fourth is judgment must be made in the context of the times. Fifth is that concern with the ethics goes up w/more means available. Sixth is the less important the end, the more ethical one can be. Seventh is success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. Eighth rule is morality of a means depends on eminent success or failure. Ninth is that any effective means will be judged unethical by the opposition. Tenth is do what you can with what you've got but dress it in moral garb. Lastly, eleventh is it must be phrased in general terms. Alinsky ends by stating that the question is not if the end justifies the means but does this particular end justify this particular means. I find it interesting that while stating that anything goes he has to add that anything will be unethical to the "haves" as well as how the ethic changes based on ends. But does morality really change? I guess you could use a necessity clause, but does it really change it?

Alinsky classifies people into 3 classes, of course you have the evil haves, the repressed have nots and the have some want more. Why do all the radicals and liberals always put people into different classes. I understand that their is inequality in the world but I also understand in America we have equal opportunity. You can always find the rags to riches story in America. Alinsky's teachings are basically how to steal from those that have more than you do, it doesn't matter how they got it, just take it. The haves want to preserve the status quo, according to Alinsky, at the expense of the other two groups. The other groups are simply "victims" of the haves.

He goes on to twist the definition of some words to fit his needed meaning before he talks about tactics, which is where I want to pick up. Of course there are some common ones, like it's not the power you have, but what your enemy thinks you have, stay within your experience and outside your enemies. He goes into make the enemy live up to their own rules, ridicule their most potent weapon, keep the pressure on, if you push the negative hard enough it becomes a positive. A couple are a little questionable, if those above aren't enough, a successful attack is constructive alternative (can't be trapped if they give in...isn't that "supposed" to be goal), and pick a target, freeze it, polarize it and demonize it. Alinsky is also credited with the statement, never let a good crisis go to waste and create a crisis where one does not exist (after all, the ends justify the means).

As I was reading, I couldn't believe what I was reading, first because, anyone who was entranced by the book and wanted to follow should have their head examined. But more importantly, "the regime" is playing right out of the book. Health care, cap and trade, amnesty, financial reform, tea party movement, fox news, business that speak out and even members of Congress are all targets of attack from "the regime". I think I like Rush Limbaugh's term better than mine ("the admin").

Everyone needs to open their eyes to what's going on. The political system has been hijacked by people who don't have America's best interest at heart. I'm not talking about because "the regime" is in office. It's been hijacked at about every level and has slowly been growing in power and now they have reached the top. We need to take our country back.