Boring From Within: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part III
Saul Alinsky, whose blueprint for revolution calls for working within the system and undermining it
[Links to the first two Alinsky blogs:
Part I: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me
Part II: Hell On Earth.]
Conservatives think of war as a metaphor when applied to politics. For radicals the war is real. That is why partisans of the left set out to destroy their opponents, not just refute their arguments. It is also why they never speak the truth. Deception for them is a military tactic in a war that is designed to elminate their opponents.
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is first of all a broadside against the New Left. What Alinsky attacks about the New Left is its honesty — something I”ve always regarded as its o–nly redeeming feature. While American Communists — the Old Left — pretended to be Jeffersonian Democrats and “progressives” and formed “popular fronts” with liberals to “defend democracy,” we in the New Left disdained their deception and regarded it as weakness. To distinguish ourselves from these Old Leftists, we said we were revolutionaries and proud of it.
“Up against the wall motherfucker” was a typical New Left slogan, telegraphing exactly how we felt about people who opposed us. The most basic principle of Alinsky’s advice to radicals is, lie to your opponents and potential opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates, liberals. This has been the most potent weapon of the left since the end of the Sixties. Racists like Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright posing as civil rights activists, radicals like Henry Waxman and Barney Frank posing as liberals. The mark of their success is how conservatives collude in the deception. Even Fox’s Megan Kelly, brilliant in all other things, still refers to the congressional socialists holding out for a total government takeover of the medical system as “liberals.”)
Alinsky chides New Leftists for being “rhetorical radicals” rather than “realistic” ones. New Leftists scared people but didn’t have the power to back up their threats. Alinsky’s manual is designed to teach radicals how to manipulate the public into thinking they’re harmless, in order to accumulate enough power to achieve the radical agenda — to burn the system down and replace it with a socialist gulag.
Make no mistake, this — a totalitarian future — is the real objective of Alinsky and his radical disciples who call themselves liberals and bore from within. Alinsky writes of “the “revolutionary force” of the 1960s, that its activists were “one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians yet they also urge violence and cry ‘Burn the system down.!’ They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book.” Radicals who call for burning down America’s democracy “have no illusions about the system”! They just don’t know how to go about doing it.
Alinsky’s book could be called Machiavellian Rules for Radicals, because it is all about deception, about keeping others in the dark about your intentions until it is too late. Alinsky even acknowledges Machiavelli as his model: “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be.” These are the famous lines that Michelle Obama made in her own Democratic Convention speech.
Alinsky continues: “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. [I will have more to say about these Haves in the next blog.] Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
Alinsky’s agenda is the same agenda as that of the radicals who called for “Revolution Now” in the 1960s. He just has a more clever way of doing it. If you want socialized medicine, don’t say you want socialized medicine. Say you want “Medicare for all,” as though transforming a partial government insurance for the indigent into a total system system required for everyone wouldn’t transform the program into a pillar of the totalitarian future.
Actually there’s nothing new in Alinsky’s strategy of appearing moderate in order to disarm your opposition. That was what Stalin’s popular front was all about — communists pretending to be democrats and forming allinaces with liberals in order to acquire enough power to shut the democracy down. And, in fact, it was Lenin’s idea too, which is where Alinsky got it in the first place. Lenin is one of Alinsky’s heroes — Castro is another — and he invokes the master in the course of chiding the rhetoricdal radicals of the New Left over a famous Sixties slogan, which was itself lifted from Mao. Mao’s slogan said political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Comments Alinsky:
“‘Power comes out of the barrel of a gun’ is an absurd rallying cry when the other side has all the guns. Lenin was a pragmatist; when he returned from what was then Petrograd from exile, he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot but would reconsider after they got the guns.”
In other words, vote for us now, but when we are the government it will be another story. One man, one vote, one time. This is the political credo of all totalitatarians, including Hitler, who was elected Chancellor and then made himself Fuerher and shut the voting booths down.
Lenin was not a pragmatist (how fatuous): he was a Machievellian monster who was engaged in a total war which justified every means to achieve its goals. Alinsky is marching to the same drummer. What he really means is that Lenin was a realist and understood how to use the power he had, and, when it was not enough to crush his opposition, to make up for its deficiencies with deception. “These rules [for radicals]” Alinsky explains, “make the difference between being a realistic radical and a being a rhetorical one who uses the tired old words and slogans, calls the police ‘pig’ or ‘white fascist racist’ or ‘motherfucker’ and has so stereotyped himself that others react by saying, ‘Oh he’s one of those’ and promptly turn off.” Get the power and then you can call them (and do with them) what you want.
“This failure of many of our younger activists to understand the art of communication has been disastrous,” writes Alinsky. What he really means is their failure to understand the art of mis-communication. This is the art that teaches radicals who are trying impose a socialist health care system in a country whose people understand that socialism destroys freedom, not to sell it as socialism, but to sell it as a “public option,” or as “Medicare for all.”
What this adds up to is a call to revolutionaries who want to destroy the system, to first work within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it. In the movement, we used to call this the strategy of “boring from within.” Like termites, you eat away at the foundations until the building collapses.
Alinsky’s advice is: Don’t confront the system as an opposing army; join it and undermine it as a fifth column force: “‘That means working within the system.” That means that “any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people.”
It is first necessary to sell the public on “change,” the “audacity of hope,” and “yes we can.” You do this by proposing moderate changes which open the door to your radical agendas. Says Alinsky:
“Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move. From there it’s a short and natural step to political pollution, to Pentagon pollution.”
Not an accident that the new Green Czar appointed by Obama to jump start the anti-pollution revolution, Van Jones, is a self-described communist.
To Have And Have Not: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part IV
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
- Boring From Within: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part III « Stop Socialism Now
- To Have And Have Not: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part IV « NewsReal Blog
- David Horowitz On Saul Alinsky | Be John Galt
- Post-modern leftism: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part V « NewsReal Blog
- Obama’s AIM…USSR America…USSRUSA! at Desert Conservative
- David Horowitz Part I-V Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me – NewsReal blog « Snow Report Blog
- Means and Ends Two: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me (Part VI continued) « NewsReal Blog
- Means and Ends: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part VI « NewsReal Blog
- The Hell on Earth Series: Horowitz, Alinsky, Beck, Satan, and thee « Beagle Scout
- Horowitz, Alinsky, Beck, Satan, and thee - LJMiller96’s blog - RedState
- The Obama White House: Alinsky Reprise | Be John Galt
- The Humorless Left Can’t Take Jokes or Creativity in Conservatives’ Criticism « NewsReal Blog
- The Obama White House: Alinsky Reprise - INC’s blog - RedState
- From the Interviews of David Horowitz: September 21, 2009 « NewsReal Blog
- Hell on Earth: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part II « NewsReal Blog
- Hell on Earth: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part II « NewsReal Blog « Get d'Clu
- The Nazi Option: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part VIII | NewsReal Blog
They didn’t anticipate the strength of our democracy and now that their strong arm tactics are failing, their following is in disarray and jumping ship. The problem is, no one is stepping forward within the Republican party to challenge them.
And don’t harp on Megan, she’s cute!
They didn’t anticipate the Internet combined with the written word – Thank you, David Horowitz for your tireless work to educate us….this series is fascinating. I look forward to the information that you will bring to the Glenn Beck show next week. I’ve been a big fan of your writings and have learned so much from them. Thanks again!
There are a few Conservatives, or Republicans that might be able to get the undecided conservatives jump started. We see this happening right now with Sara Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul…even Glenn Beck. I doesn’t matter if these particular people might not fully have what it takes to become president… they have the uncompromising determination, in the face of ridicule and defamation, to make a stand against this administration. I have no doubt ‘health care reform’ is just the foot in the door. Once policies and legislation are in place…our Constitutional rights will fall like dominoes…
This is a very good explanation of how our President and his cult are utilising Alinsky’s principles. The similarities in tactics, strategy and brazenly stated comments by voices at the top are chillingly accurate.
Thank you , Dr. Horowitz
I’ve just read the Wikipedia page for David Horowitz. I know that these articles are quite often biased and filled with inaccuracies…
I referred to David as Dr. Horowitz…I apologise if that is not accurate. And according to wiki…you’re not very fond of Ron Paul…I have issues with some of his ideas, but there a a few that I like.
I am looking forward to your next article, The Haves…should be enlightening.
David Horowitz is a ‘common sense’ person viewing life without ‘finatical filters’.
He is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stinking government take-over offering education and motivating independent thinking.
Bad news for our college students unable to bypass the Left propaganda and shed their sheeple attire, whereas they could emerge fully informed with a classic education and function within society armed and ready to contribute.
Alsinsky believed you must work ‘within’ the system to ‘destroy’ it. We have enough examples of ‘working within the system’ after 7 months of the Emperor and his Czars. Were he alive today he would have plenty to say about the failure of the health care reform movement.
We need to understand that Alinsky’s radical agenda involves a ‘means to an end’ and the ‘end itself’. The ultimate goal of his prescriptions is to DESTROY AMERICA and its ‘Haves’ and to create a society in which the ‘Have Nots’ have everything they need and desire.
The validity of his ultimate goal is not examined by himself or his followers. It is a ‘given’, not subject to evaluation or rebutal. There is no willingness to explore the reasons for belonging to the ‘haves’ or the ‘have nots’. The very fact that this disparity exists is, by definition, a crime and a social injustice.
So what is Alinsky’s motivation to take from the ‘haves’ and to give to the ‘have nots’? There is no sound economic or moral argument for doing this. Both the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ belong to their respective groups by choice or by default (e.g., inheritance). What mental disorder was he suffering from or what bizarre ideology? If we can answer this question for him and develop a cure, we can hope that one day leftists can be helped to acquire ‘common sense’ and be liberated from ‘nonsense’.
I personally think that the Czars stand above the law, and that nobody can stop them from doing what they want. In the United States of America, that’s just wrong. We need to make these czars answerable to congress and put an end to this presidential appointments without congressional oversight.
Also, we need to take the money making ability away from the Federal Reserve bank, which isn’t a government entity at all, and put it back in the hands of the treasury department where it belongs.
I have been thinking much of Sol Alinsky, and his so called “Primer for Power” and have a few theories about some potential shortcomings. While I have not been able to locate a copy of “Rules for Radicals” I have read much about Alinksy’s hero Lenin and his successor Stalin. Between the quotes from this book given by Mr Horowitz and Mr. Levin, from what I can tell, nothing Alinsky offers is new or original, just as Mr Horowitz has demonstrated.
I have however noted a few shortcomings, the first as I just mentioned, is that most of these ideas are a plagiarized rehash of prior works, works created by the founders and masters of totalitarian regimes that have already failed. Logic would dictate that if these tactics were without flaw, and without means to counteract them, and of course their ideals admirable, these regimes would still exist.
Here is the second flaw, even if Alinsky’s ideas were original he was never able to successfully demonstrate them himself, he never held an elected office and was never able to elevate himself to a position of power aside from being a union agitator. This doesn’t mean that his ideas or followers are not dangerous, they are, but realistically it reminds me of the adage regarding the stock market, not to take financial advice from someone who is earning less then you are.
Yet another flaw lies in the fact that his book is almost forty years out of date and thankfully Alinsky is not around to amend or augment it, nor it seems are his followers imaginative enough to do so on their own. In this age of satellite TV, talk radio, and world wide internet, the ability to deceive, cover up, destroy, and silence opponents is extremely difficult if not impossible.
On top of that most American’s, and the English speaking peoples in general, possess a healthy distrust of authority and government sometimes to the point of irrationality. This stems from the fact, which Alinsky and the other Leftists have overlooked, that the US of A was created through revolution inspired by the ideas of freedom, liberty, and individualism spawned by the English revolutions of the 17 century. So when the Alinskites go on the attack of private citizens, as what is happening at these town hall meetings, rather then cowering and falling in line they rise up and hit back.
Progressives, leftists, fascists, socialists, nazis, communists, terrorists – whatever you call them, they are all the same. They are TOTALITARIAN OLIGARCHS. They want to get power so they can rule over the rest of society. Period. That’s the way the world has always been. Just read history, that’s what it’s all about. Democracy, freedom, have to be guarded jealously and fought for, otherwise it will go down into the abyss. Freedom only ever happened in the Western world. It has been hard won. Yet most of the western world is abdicating, appeasing, bending over for the totalitarian element of every kind to take over. We have to decide, do we want to bend over to a totalitarian state, or fight for freedom?
Great to see you promoting ‘Rules for Radicals’ and Alinsky in general.
I was only reading it the other night and marvelling at the humour, clarity and persuasiveness of it all.
I’m not surprised a resurgence of interest has got you lot worried. Alinsky’s crisp and powerful writing style is such a contrast with unhinged drivel of Horowitz.
Debra,
Thanks for dropping by and visiting us here at NewsReal.
If you’d like to know more about David Horowitz then I’d encourage you to read his memoir, Radical Son. You can buy it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Son-Generational-David-Horowitz/dp/0684840057/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250660988&sr=8-1
You can also find more writings about David’s work at my Books In Depth blog. Specific essays I’d point you toward:
http://booksindepth.blogspot.com/2008/12/losing-faith-in-left-understanding.html
http://booksindepth.blogspot.com/2009/01/introduction-to-writings-of-david.html
http://booksindepth.blogspot.com/2009/07/david-horowitzs-conservatism-postmodern.html
Thanks for your interest.
On Friday, February 12 1999 On Article 1, the charge of perjury, 55 senators, including 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats voted not guilty. On Article 3, obstruction of justice, the Senate split evenly, 50 for and 50 against the President
Clinton. and he got a free pass our great Senate Professional Responsibility failed to
protect one of there own.
We’re fighting, Linda and will prevail.
Rocky;
Promoting it? Surely you jest? It may be all of what you describe except for three points: The work isn’t at all original, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Goebbels promoted similar tactics. It was written by a long deceased bitter old man from another era. It is a work based on a warped interpretation and indictment of Western society in pursuit of a Utopian ideal that has historically been proven to be a lie.
“Great to see you promoting ‘Rules for Radicals’ and Alinsky in general.
I was only reading it the other night and marvelling at the humour, clarity and persuasiveness of it all. I’m not surprised a resurgence of interest has got you lot worried. Alinsky’s crisp and powerful writing style is such a contrast with unhinged drivel of Horowitz.â€
Rocky O’Rourke,
Alinsky was a looser as evident by his zero accomplishments. He was the type that made up rules for everyone else to follow except for himself…..Hopefully you are not related to any of my Midwest O’Rourkes. Don’t think you are because there is no like mindedness here.
Hi Valentina!
Exactly. This is why Obama, Reid, Anita Dunn, Rahm, Pelosi, Kerry, etc…are trying to shut Fox news down and control the internet. They know inorder for communist Marxism to completely take over, the right’s media must be completely shut down. No more truth for America!! So scary….David, you are great, thank you very much…We all need to follow David’s leadership and continue to get the word out, blog, tea parties, PRAY, pray some more, then do whatever we must to wake up the rest of our american people.
“Yet another flaw lies in the fact that his book is almost forty years out of date and thankfully Alinsky is not around to amend or augment it, nor it seems are his followers imaginative enough to do so on their own. In this age of satellite TV, talk radio, and world wide internet, the ability to deceive, cover up, destroy, and silence opponents is extremely difficult if not impossible.”
—————————————
Hello Fritz,
Great feedback and comforting as well. This is exactly why Obama is intent on silencing Fox news and why Rush was set up. I am puzzled and down right flabbergasted. What am I missing here? Can’t figure out if, Obama and his people really think they can silence us. Do they really think we are stupid and weak individuals??? Do they really think we are that easy??? Luci thought he was much smarter than God, and see what happened?
The many bizarre ideas Obamamites come up with, remind me of actions one might take, if they were high from smoking pot or crack. Examples – HC takeover, global warming, cap and trade, cash for clunkers, firing CEOs, fairness act?, internet intrusion, CIA, civilian military, indoctrinating kids, bizarre czars, snubbing allies, backing dictatorship in Honduras, palling with our enemies, viscous bullying and name calling, race baiting, picking fights with our police, then inviting the same policeman to the WH when the scheme did not work, forming union monopolies, etc…this list could go on forever. These behaviors and ideas are not normal.
Fritz,
Have you ever noticed that Obama and all of his people are also bitter?