I bet they’ll vote for Hillbama, too

I wonder how many Marin residents, reading this innocuous sounding article about various churches and synagogues getting together for social causes realizes that there is a huge political agenda going on here. (The giveaway is in the second paragraph.) And this being Marin, I wonder how many would care if they knew:

A group of 25 churches, synagogues and other local groups is working to build a political power base they hope will begin to address a variety of community issues. The Marin Organizing Committee is the workaday name for their effort, based on the community organizing concepts of social reformer Saul Alinsky in the 1930s.

“We are not confrontational in any way,” says Joanne Saxe of Congregation Rodef Sholom in San Rafael. “We want (the political decision-makers) to join us in solving these problems.”

She and other representatives of member institutions plan to unveil their agenda in a meeting open to the public at 7 p.m. Thursday in the St. Raphael Catholic Church gymnasium.

Local political leaders have been invited to attend by the Rev. Paul Rossi of St. Raphael and Rabbi Michael Lezak of Congregation Rodef Sholom. The group has no elected officers.

The committee will propose an agenda for action that will include:

– Providing an emergency shelter to serve homeless individuals and families.

– Examining “serious problems” with the Redwood Landfill in Novato.

– Providing psychiatric care for those who can’t afford it.

– Looking at issues of transportation, education, teens and immigration.

While 11 institutions so far are financial sponsors of the committee, 14 others are actively involved or have indicated they will join.

I like the way Saul Alinsky has been neatly packaged as a social reformer. He was a self-professed revolutionary, who viewed his approach as the wedge for true socialist revolution.

I have no problem with true grass roots movements, where people band together to take care of themselves or their community. When Alinsky’s name comes up, though, you know that there’s more to it than mere local self-improvement.

UPDATE:  Info on Alinsky.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. SADIE says

    From the same Wikipedia page:

    Alinsky was the subject of Hillary Rodham’s senior honors thesis at Wellesley College, “There Is Only The Fight…”: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.[8] Rodham commented on Alinsky’s “charm,” but noted that “one of the primary problems of the Alinsky model is that the removal of Alinsky dramatically alters its composition.” [8] Later, in her 2003 biography, “Living History” Clinton notes that although she agreed with some of his ideas, “particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves” they had a fundamental disagreement: “He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t.” [8] Once Hillary Rodham Clinton became First Lady of the United States, the thesis was suppressed by the White House for fear of being associated too closely with Alinsky’s ideas.[9]

    Alinsky also had a significant influence on United States Senator Barack Obama, a leading candidate for the nomination of the Democratic party in the 2008 presidential elections.[8] Obama particularly used Alinsky’s techniques while participating in Chicago community organizations in the 1980s.

    So much for the Alinsky technique. Maybe a little Shiatsu massage would be a better technique – at least it relieves the tension.

  2. Ymarsakar says

    An academic sheep’s clothing at that, Danny.

    Alinsky’s techniques are only extrapolations, not innovations, upon the time tested means by which human beings can be manipulated and exploited by other human beings.

    He saw Unions, which were constructing themselves more and more upon the basis of a medieval guild in which its members paid dues and the union ensured that there was no competition for union jobs, as an example of social organization in which an elite few can hold power over the many by promising the many benefits and protection from threats.

    Alinsky’s revolution promised that by changing the structure of society’s institutions, it would rid the world of such vices as socio-pathology and criminality. Arguing that these vices were caused not by personal character flaws but rather by external societal influences

    Setting up a neat little cabal of aristocrats that decide the life and death of the masses must then be just the icing on the side. After all, if individuals and personal character flaws aren’t the problem, why not elevate the few to the title of King and Queen?

    Find a strong man to “get things done” to change society. As I have mentioned before, fake liberals, Palestinians, and Sunnis pre Al Anbar Awakening weren’t very different when all was said and done.

    “places human rights far above property rights”; who favors “universal, free public education”; who “insists on full employment for economic security”

    When a person’s work can be taken from him because you own his property and can distribute it however you wish, that person has no “human rights” for you are his master and owner.

    Universal public education is a great way to brainwash the future generation into complying with property distribution to the rich Alinsky nobles.

    Full employment is necessary because out of work people would be a destabilizing factor in the Alinsky aristocracy. One must keep the masses feed and busy, else they’d be fomenting revolution like how Alinsky got himself into power. Wouldn’t want that now.

    who “will fight conservatives” everywhere

    Not everywhere. One must have one’s allies in the black *hate gays* community of theological liberation as well as the Arabic and Palestinian conservatives head chopping enemies of the faith.

    “will fight privilege and power, whether it be inherited or acquired,”

    That’s a good thing for the Alinsky nobles to put in, since their power will neither be inherited nor acquired. Their power will be stolen from the cribs of children too weak from Alinsky induced hunger and threats to fight back.

    The Prince, he elaborated, “was written by Macchiavelli for the Haves on how to hold onto power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”[12]

    An apt analogy. The Prince was written to prevent war and economic destability from ruining the lives of both the people of the state and thus secure the health of the ruler as well. The Rules for Radicals were written in order to secure the lives of the ruler by expending people.

    Liberals fear power or its application.… They talk glibly of people lifting themselves by their own bootstraps

    Another sign that “liberals” of the 21st century are really conservative religious fanatics while the “conservatives” of the 21st century are really the last 15 centuries’ worth of liberals.

    Profound economic injustice was by no means America’s only shortcoming, as Alinsky saw things.

    helen has the same beliefs concerning economic injustice and how we need to redistribute wealth from whites to blacks.

    The solution to all this Alinsky stuff is simple.

    Use counter-insurgency to crush the insurgency, whether it be domestic or foreign based. Just as we use Predator armed drones to blow up terrorists and their leaders in cars, so shall it be used on the domestic insurgents. But COIN is not just about blowing people up. It is about taking the soul and the people themselves away from the organization of terror.

    An insurgency, at its basic fundamental premise, is designed to take power away from the status quo and/or government. A counter-insurgency is designed to defend the status quo, eliminate chaos, and protect the current style of government.

    Alinsky is only “scary” to the extent that he is protected by the nation he seeks to destroy. If it wasn’t for this nation’s protections that he sought to destroy, Petraeus and the Army/Marines could wipe out his organization in under a year. Not just wipe out the leaders, leaving a bunch of martyrs for the next generation to revere. I mean wipe out in “nobody will ever admit to following Alinsky” afterwards. Just like with Nazism. Wiped out, in America at least.

    Studying war and violence has one benefit you don’t often hear about. And it is the fact that when there’s a problem, war and violence can usually solve it if the solutions are allowed to be applied.

  3. Danny Lemieux says

    “When a person’s work can be taken from him because you own his property and can distribute it however you wish, that person has no “human rights” for you are his master and owner.”

    Well said, YM. That’s the rub, isn’t it?

    With regard to HelenL, I am still trying to get my mind around her way of thinking – not her beliefs per se, but rather the underlying psychology that supports such beliefs.

  4. Ymarsakar says

    but rather the underlying psychology that supports such beliefs.

    Chess and military tactical problems require the same kind of skillset, although they often don’t apply to other fields because the methodology is different.

    If you want underlying psychology, then use this comparison of me and Alinsky.

    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.[57] “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.”[58]

    What is described here is nothing short of Total Warf, but it’s not the American version of Total War. The ATW version does not entail victory as the highest goal, rather victory is only ever secondary to ethics. Because it is ethical conduct that not only provides you victory but ensures that you deserve victory and can hold onto it in the long term. This is the difference between the American Revolution, which was conducted morally and ethically, and the French Revolution, which wasn’t. Which one lasted longer, Danny? Even though the French won their revolution and so did America, which revolution is still alive to this day, Danny?

    This is why ethics hold primary importance even over victory; it is also why ATW has had so long a history of successes.

    Alinsky may also be said to be scary because he refuses to obey societal, national, or ethnical boundaries on what is right or wrong. To him power is the quintessential ingredient to action and rightness.

    Winning was all that mattered in Alinsky’s strategic calculus: “The morality of a means depends on whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”[54] “The man of action … thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action,” Alinsky added. “He asks only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”[55] For Alinsky, all morality was relative: “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment.”[56]

    And here I and my beliefs enter the fray. Given that Alinsky sees morality as being relative to whether the man of action will win or not, what do you suspect my reaction is? I will tell you.

    I will obliterate Alinsky and his works and demonstrate that my side is the right side. And it won’t be just because of Alinsky’s “the victor writes the history books” non-sense about ethics being relative, either, since I will annihilate him using my philosophy that ethics takes importance over ephemeral victories because only ethics can guarantee that you deserve to hold onto that victory. I believe in my own views just as much as he believes in his, but there is only one faction and philosophy that will win out in the end, you see.

    And do you know what the sweet irony is? It is that if I defeat Alinsky’s views and allies, then by Alinsky’s own ethical model, he would be in the wrong because every unethical action he had taken to date had just been proven to be wrong because he has now been defeated. It doesn’t work and if it doesn’t work, it isn’t justified, now is it.

    Victory may not be the only thing people like me care about, but if it is the only thing that people like Alinsky cares about, then we’ll just have to take it from him. And in the end, war does what it has always done. War solves irreparable differences in philosophy and belief, wherein two or more factions disagree on a fundamental tenet of human civilization that can only be resolved by annihilating the other and proving that your way is truly the best way.

    And why is that really? Why is war often the sole decider of who gets to live and who gets to be dead and wrong?

    It is because war requires you do everything right the first time. There are no second chances. You lose means you lose. There are no ACLU lawyers to provide pro bono support. There are no Red Cross agencies to send you care packages. There aren’t even any appeals court to decrease your sentence of crucifixion to just a “hanging”. What you get when you lose is what you get, and you have no say in the matter anymore.

    Those that have studied the history of war know very well what it means for a people to lose a war. That is what students of history, true students of history, try their damnedest not to lose any war. Cannon fodder think they can lose a war and they’ll be pardoned cause only the rich and powerful will be singled out for punishment by the new conquerors. Maybe that’ll happen and maybe not. That decision, again, will not be one made by the cannon fodder. As traitors, they believe that the new conquerors will come in and give the traitors power over the nation and people that the traitors betrayed. Again, that may or may not happen. It all depends on the will of the conquerors’ and it sure as heck doesn’t depend upon the whims and petty ambitions of the traitors.

    Btw, war is what happens when civilization and social hierarchies break down. Violence, true violence, is used when there are no peaceful or civilized ways to resolve problems anymore. Alinsky and others, when they engage in war, know full well that they have now just put themselves outside the normal social hierarchy, meaning the status quo and the current government. What is unique to Leftist anarchy, however, is that somehow they can wage war on people and still benefit from the legal protections of those people, so long as those people are still fighting or alive or undefeated. The same applies to the Islamic JIhad, which is an interesting parallel and one has to wonder who got it from whom. Did the Islamic Jihad get such methods of social revolution from the Left and Communists or was it the other way around? Or maybe it was just cross-polination.

    In the history of the human race, civilization, laws, society, and hierarchical groups developed for one purpose and one purpose only. They developed in order to resolve the fact that war is hell and solving problems through war and violence is a task very unforgiving of mistakes. Since people like to live and correct their mistakes, war was never a thing people entered into lightly. Until now.

    Total War is so violent and destructive that a civilization only ever gets one chance at it. Look at Carthage. They had so many Punic Wars because neither Carthage nor Rome could co-exist with the other, so diplomacy and peaceful methods to resolve things just went out the window after awhile. A nation or a people that survives and wins a Total War, becomes much much stronger than any other, since it is a test no individual, nation, or its people could undertake and not be changed. Look at Rome’s post Carthage history and see if that is true or not. Look at America’s post WWII history to see whether that is true or not, by comparing post WWII American power with Pre WWII American military power.

    As for European attempts at total war, they like the Greeks preferred to put limitations on warfare such as Geneva Conventions and gentleman’s rules. Even in the carnage of WWI, where normal military tactics had broken down into trench warfare because of the machine gun innovation, fighter pilots shot down on both sides were accorded respect and good treatment. The same may be said for the ground troops, except for the fact that there weren’t many prisoners taken and the ground war was a little too ferocious and insane for gentleman’s conduct to take hold on the field. It’s kind of hard to give POW rights when you are flame throwing enemy entrenchments out.

    In the end, what this meant was that Europe wasted hundreds of thousands of people, with nothing to show for it. Total War, not to mention ATW, is not WWI but more similar to WWII. Actually, all wars to the knife probably started with somebody trying to appease folks or apply “laws” to warfare and violence. If those laws work, sure great, we have civilization and limited wars where everybody fights 1 day and goes to dinner together the next 4 days. A great thing if you can get it. But when those laws break down, bad things tend to happen.

    And those laws designed to make war civilized have definitely broken down in the 21st century. Lots of change starts happening when society and civilization breaks down and you will always have people link Alinsky around chipping away at the foundations from inside the walls and you will always have barbarians outside the walls trying to get in. What you don’t have in history is the most powerful nation in the world trying to protect both the barbarians outside the gates and the saboteurs inside the gates, at the same time. That’s why wars are now easy to conduct, because there’s no risk involved.

    Get your arse beat by America in Somalia or by the Jews in the Levantine? Why, just call for a cease fire and “negotiations”.

    There’s no risk. You can lose 5,000,000 times and still fight again, hoping to get that win on the 5,000,001th time. That’s why you don’t see Total War being conducted often. You have one chance at it just like you have one chance at real violence, win or lose, live or die.

    But limited wars are designed precisely to prolong warfare by prolonging the lives of nations and people, so that they can live and fight again. This is the eternal war that Alinsky favors, because he favors any tactic that will bring victory and so far limited war is what brings revolutionaries, insurgents, and terrorists a good chance at victory.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with limited warfare just as there is nothing inherently wrong with total warfare, unless of course you are the one that lost it. What’s wrong is that limited warfare only works on one side: our side. They get to wage total war on us and we get to use limited war on them.

    Now isn’t that a great way to cheat at Total War.

    Alinsky warned the organizer to be ever on guard against the possibility that the enemy might unexpectedly 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.’”[59] 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.

    When Israel offers peace, Arafat must not only deny it but must undermine it and destroy such offers. Make them non-existent, even.

    When whites offer true reform to Black Panthers, Black Panthers refuse and demand more. When Western civilization offers moderation and toleration to Muslim religious practices, Muslims demand more. Always more, more, more. Why?

    Because you’re in a war, not a fracking tea party.

    “Alinsky scolded the Sixties Left for scaring off potential converts in Middle America. True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.”

    And in war, infiltrating the enemy in order to take them down from the inside out is a perfectly valid target. And if we can’t infiltrate an org like Al Qaeda, we just buy the loyalty of AQ members or allies or witnesses that can be turned to our cause.

    This is also why you execute spies in warfare. You can’t afford to have the enemy undermining your military operations and if you use spies and saboteurs on the enemy for military gain, you have to pay the cost of sacrificing those agents if they are caught, because if the enemy is also allowed to sabotage your works, then you gain no military advantage by sending in agents and saboteurs yourself. Enemy agents must be executed, for the experience they have acquired in infiltration and sabotage tactics are too dangerous to let survive. Since you are using spies to bolster your military power on the assumption that you can win with that power, you don’t need to play “fair” and give the enemy’s side free reign in terms of infiltrating your military or network.

    And if you think you can win by military might alone, then you won’t need any spies in the first place. And if you don’t use spies, you sure as heck shouldn’t be helping the enemy’s spies, either.

    To appeal to the middle class, Alinsky continued, “goals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’; ‘Of the Common Welfare’; ‘Pursuit of happiness’; or ‘Bread and Peace.’”[65] He suggested, for instance, that an effective organizer “discovers what their [the middle class’] definition of the police is, and their language — [and] he discards the rhetoric that always says ‘pig’ [in reference to police]. Instead of hostile rejection he is seeking bridges of communication and unity over the gaps…. He will view with strategic sensitivity the nature of middle-class behavior with its hang-ups over rudeness or aggressive, insulting, profane actions. All this and more must be grasped and used to radicalize parts of the middle class.”

    What counter-insurgency does is grab the souls of the people from terrorist organizations and cement them to our cause. Their “hearts and minds” are just a way to their souls, you see. Convince their soul to back us and they will, no matter the fear in their hearts nor the doubts and frustrations in their minds. If they want “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” then all the counter-insurgency forces have to demonstrate is that WE have those 3 and not the terrorists. In Iraq and Al Anbar, the terrorists promised freedom from occupation and told the Sunnis “the Americans want you to be free, so why should you allow them to occupy you”. This convinced the Sunnis to fight with terrorists against America.

    What convinced the Sunnis to fight with America against terrorists is counter-insurgents demonstrating, with no ability by revolutionaries to reject, that the terrorists are full of crap. This can be done either by us killing terrorists to protect villagers or simply by pointing out the people the terrorists have unjustly killed. Amongst other things I won’t get into.

    A related principle taught by Alinsky was that radical organizers must not only speak the language of the middle class, but that they also must dress their crusades in the vestments of morality. “Moral rationalization,” he said, “is indispensable to all kinds of action, whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.”[67] “All great leaders,” he added, “invoked ‘moral principles’ to cover naked self-interest in the clothing of ‘freedom,’ ‘equality of mankind,’ ‘a law higher than man-made law,’ and so on.” In short: “All effective actions require the passport of morality.”[68]

    This tactic of framing one’s objectives in the rhetoric of morality precisely paralleled a communist device for deception known as “Aesopian language,” which J. Edgar Hoover described as follows:

    “Nearly everyone is familiar with the fables of Aesop…. Often the point of the story is not directly stated but must be inferred by the reader. This is a ‘roundabout’ presentation. Lenin and his associates before 1917, while living in exile, made frequent use of ‘Aesopianism.’ Much of their propaganda was written in a ‘roundabout’ and elusive style to pass severe Czarist censorship. They desired revolution but could not say so. They had to resort to hints, theoretical discussions, even substituting words, which, through fooling the censor, were understood by the ‘initiated,’ that is, individuals trained in [Communist] Party terminology….

    This section is related to helen’s contention to DQ that blacks learn differently from whites in that blacks learn through “stories” and that the “story” of AIDs is true because this is something the US government could have done.

    To re-translate, this means lying, making up stories, and telling people either what they want to believe or what they fear to be true, in hopes of manipulating… well, their hopes and aspirations.

    In Alinsky’s view, action was more often the catalyst for revolutionary fervor than vice versa. He deemed it essential for the organizer to get people to act first (e.g., participate in a demonstration) and rationalize their actions later. “Get them to move in the right direction first,” said Alinsky. “They’ll explain to themselves later why they moved in that direction.”[75]

    It’s a method of manipulating mass groups. If you get a large number of people moving in one direction, there’s a kind of Brown Motion plus inertial that then takes place, which uses societal pressure to force other people in the mob to move in the same direction, even if they have objections or doubts. Take a look at Leftist society in which someone like Lieberman or Neo Neocon tries to “contradict” the fold.

    It’s not a particularly bad method for manipulating mass groups, but it is rather crude all in all. It is far better to motivate mass groups along military lines of chain of command, where individual initiative plays a greater part. Then again, individual initiative means free will and free will means “free to reject your propaganda and commandments”. Thus we encounter ethics, once again, where my position is that great ethics produces power and sustains it as well, where unethical actions like Alinsky’s can produce some power initially, but eventually fades out once it comes into contact with our side. And when I say “comes into contact” I mean “trying to slaughter each other”.

    · “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.”

    Funny, that’s exactly what I preferred to do about Alinsky and company. But the thing, we can live up to our own rules… so long as our own rules include using Alinsky’s code of ethics against him. That’s the rub, in the end. Your code of ethics will always destroy you in the end… if you don’t demand and make your enemies follow it as well while treating your enemies as if they should be protected by your ethics.

    · “No organization, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their ‘book’ of rules and regulations.”

    Which is why free will and initiative is so very important, and not just with the military in war. It prevents enemies from using your own system to strangle you with. Lawyers, including military lawyers, don’t seem quite able to grasp this fact.


    Alinsky taught that in order to most effectively cast themselves as defenders of moral principals and human decency, organizers must react with “shock, horror, and moral outrage” whenever their targeted enemy in any way misspeaks or fails to live up to his “book of rules.”

    The stereotypical trap for this sort of behavior can be created in numerous guises. For example, to counter Abu Ghraib images, one would probably have to publicly execute the ones found guilty in a court martial via either hanging, firing squad, or beheading. “public” as in “New York Square”. I can guarantee you that the “shock” created when people fail to live up to their “book of rules” is offset by public punishment of that order, so long as the people see it over and over again. Even those that say “higher command did something wrong” is going to be unconvincing, when the punishment is public execution. This makes the revolutionaries and critics into de facto proponents for the death penalty and public execution of generals and what not. This isn’t popular with generals, even Democrat generals like Schumaker or Wesley. If the revolutionaries say “we want Rumsfield punished but not by the unjust way he did to the cannon fodder”, then what we have is essentially the Left giving clemency to the “evil Rummy”, which is not going to be seen positively by the cannon fodder of the Left.

    These are “stereotypical traps” because they not only counter Alinsky’s attack of an organization using their rules, but they actually use Alinsky’s own attack to attack Alinsky’s and his allies.

    Let’s take GitMo as an example. They accuse us of violating Geneva Conventions and keeping these enemy combatants there and torturing them or shipping them out and torturing them. The normal counter might be having a squad of journalists come over while “staging a torture incident by trying to cover it up and get the journalists out at a certain time”, thus creating a torture headline that is “leaked” to the public from GitMo. Then of course, you let them stoke themselves up about how we aren’t following our rules and how we said we wouldn’t torture but we are doing it in GitMo and tried to hide it. Well, after making sure the footage of the interrogator and the “victim” has been seen for a week in America, we then trot out the interrogator and his “victim”, who is a member of the United States military, Special Forces, Marines, etc that voluntered to put on an acting show to entertain the journalists. They are very sorry the journalists took it so badly. (Got that idea from Tom Kratman)

    These two examples turn the tables and aren’t just passive defenses. In the first case, if the Left accuses us of violating our rules about torture, we accuse them of violating their support of non-death penalties or we accuse them of violating their beliefs about Rumsfield and the elites and the punishment they should get.

    In example two, we have a perfect way to accuse the media, who has accused us of violating our rules, of violating THEIR rules of objective and factual reporting. The government didn’t lie to anybody. The media lied to everybody while the government was trying to tell people “it wasn’t true”. And it was exactly true that it wasn’t true.

    You either do these types of things against Alinsky type attacks or you take it on the chin and hope your enemy is feeling tired today. If that is your cup of tea, that is.

    “Ridicule,” said Alinsky, “is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

    Alinsky is or was a nice study on human nature and our foibles. The only way to counterattack ridicule is to find another topic and use it to attack your enemies. Attack, attack, attack is attack philosophy. Defend, defend, and die is pacifist philosophy.

    There’s a difference between the two, in case you hadn’t noticed. No pacifist philosophy will ever defeat someone like Alinsky. Nor is trying to “defend” yourself by uttering justifications and excuses for why why why, why nothing, why you’re wrong, why you should be ridiculed?

    Toward this end, Alinksy advised organizers to be sure that they always kept more than one “fight in the bank.” In other words, organizers should keep a stockpile of comparatively small crusades which they are already prepared to conduct, and to which they can instantly turn their attention after having won a major victory of some type. These “fights in the bank” serve the dual purpose of keeping the organization’s momentum going, while not allowing its major crusade to get “stale” from excessive public exposure.

    Guess Bush forgot to have a more than one “fight in the bank” after OIF 2003. Should have focused exclusively on Afghanistan pushing into Iran or maybe invaded Syria and Saudis, eh?

    A People’s Organization, said Alinsky, can build a wide-based membership only if it focuses on multiple issues (e.g., civil rights, civil liberties, welfare, rent, urban renewal, the environment, etc.) “Multiple issues mean constant action and life,” Alinsky wrote.[86]

    This is just like marketing in that you have to diversify and branch out otherwise you are easily cut off from the market via technological innovations and what not.

    It shows, he said, “that their leadership cares so much for them, and is so sincerely committed to the issue, that it is willing to suffer imprisonment for the cause.”[88] But Alinsky stipulated that organizers should seek to be jailed only for a short duration (from one day to two months); longer terms of incarceration, he said, have a tendency to fall from public consciousness and to be forgotten

    Gee, I wonder what an immediate execution would do to public consciousness if an incarceration of more than 2 months starts dropping people’s attention.

    I’m a fan of public and private executions for many many reasons. And this isn’t even one of them.

    Though Alinsky died in 1972, his legacy has lived on as a staple of leftist method, a veritable blueprint for revolution — to which both Democratic presidential candidates, who are his disciples and protégés, refer euphemistically as “change.”

    The article ends on the wrong note. The important thing here is not the Democrat candidates; it is Democrat power. Democrat power comes Democrat organizations and funding. Destroy those and you destroy Democrat candidates. Targeting the candidates themselves and talking about how their “change” is really just revolutionary talk, does nothing good in the long term. For a real life example, look at Abu Musab Zarqawi and Saddam. (or perhaps that should be ‘look at what was once Z and S”)

    You could capture and kill those people all you want, but it won’t break their organizations until you annihilate their foundation of power.

Leave a Reply