The 13 Main Alinsky Tactics

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
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.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Works Cited

Alinsky, Saul Rules for Radicals. Toronto: Vintage Publishing 1971

The Darwinian Paradox of Progressivism

Perhaps no phrase so succinctly, and so famously encapsulates Darwin’s theory as the phrase “survival of the fittest”. And yet, in that small phrase lies not only the birth of Progressivism in America, but also it’s greatest paradox. Progressivism grew out of the Darwinian model. It sought to replace the theocentric view espoused by most Americans.

This trend continues in full force with the so-called “new Progressives”, who many times pay lip-service to the idea of “God”, but are in the main Darwinian, Nietzschean atheists. Man, they would tell us, would have to fix his own ills and so it would take the best and the brightest (i.e. scientists, enlightened and brilliant political and entertainment figures) to right the ship. An oligarchy of  the intelligentsia if you will.

However, there is a problem with the very core of this theory. It conflicts wildly with the Marxist foundation upon which it rests. For if we are to truly believe Darwin, we are compelled to believe that it is through the unique individual that all evolution takes place. Transmutations in nature do not occur, according to Darwinian teaching, en masse, but rather with unique creatures who somehow mutate in ways that end up being beneficial, and result in genes that serve to self-perpetuate a superior creature capable of survival beyond the level of its predecessors.

So how does this create a paradox for Progressives? Simply put, Progressives wish to espouse Marxist or, at least quasi-Marxist, positions that require the superiority of the collective over the individual. Progressives, in Marxist fashion, are constantly promoting the concept of the collective good over the individual.

It then becomes completely inconsistent to claim you espouse “the scientific” approach as opposed to the “hocus pocus” of religion, while simultaneously promoting the collective above the individual. For if you believe the science you claim to believe, it is the individual that leads to the evolution of the species and not some communal arrangement.

So then I leave you with the Darwinian Paradox of Progressivism. Either you believe in science and exalt it above religion or you believe in any form of Progressive collectivism. You cannot, with any logical consistency, embrace both.

Alinsky – Recommended Reading by the National Education Association

The other day, this page on the NEA website was brought to my attention by @jefe_viejo on twitter.  At first, I thought it might be some sort of dummy site or something until I backtracked through the NEA site and found that the links did indeed lead to that page.It is troubling that the NEA believes that the writings of Saul Alinsky are not only acceptable, but are in fact worthy of their recommendation. I won’t rehash here why Alinsky is so inappropriate for teachers and students alike, except to point out a few obvious issues. Otherwise, reading my blog should make it very clear that Alinsky’s teachings are not appropriate in an educational setting.

 

Let me just give you a few quotes from the NEA webpage on Alinsky, and you can make up your own mind if this is the type of material teachers should be studying and imparting to your children.

First, from the site,

“Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.”

And again,

“He will fight conservatives whether they are business or labor leaders.”

At the very least, this quote should concern you regardless of your political views, because it pushes a specific political agenda. This is wholly inappropriate for teacher and student alike. All viewpoints should be given consideration in any free exchange of ideas. We certainly should not be encouraging anyone to be a Liberal radical and break the necks of Conservatives, although this does echo some of the posturing currently coming out of this White House.

The page also says,

“The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks. He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests, which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people.”

Is inspiring violence in the name of one’s political views really, what teacher and/or student should be studying?

And again,

“That is the reason why Radicals, although frequently embarking upon revolutions, have rarely resorted to personal terrorism.”

The word “rarely” should frighten any sensible person.

The page ends with,

“Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize”

Again, I have to ask you is this what you want either your child or your child’s teacher reading? Is it appropriate or is it in fact seditious? You make the call. I know where I stand.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan

I wish to thank @airbrat77 and @jefe_viejo for their tireless work in getting this issue noticed, along  with many, many others on twitter who helped to get the message out.

I’d also like to thank all of those in the press who picked up on the story. Here are some links to what others have said:

 

WorldNetDaily offered this aricle entitled, “NEA raves to teachers about Alinsky ‘guidebook’

 

Michelle Malkin offered this entry entitled, “What’s on your teacher’s reading list?“

 

FoxNation offered this entry, “Alinsky on NEA’s recommended reading list”.

 

A google search for “nea Alinsky” will turn up quite a few more.

The Alinsky Tactics, Rule by Rule – Rule 4

I have made every effort to make these articles on the rules easier to read and understand. I hope you enjoy it, and use it wisely.

“The fourth rule is: 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.” [1]

What does it mean?

This tactic is genius in its simplicity. The idea is to keep the attention on your opponent by simply peppering them with the ways in which they fail to be perfect. No one is perfect and so the rule is powerful.

In fact, it is one of the most powerful tactics in the Alinsky arsenal. We will see as we go along that this rule, along with the fifth rule and the thirteenth rule are the heart and soul of how the Obama Administration uses Alinsky rules to their benefit.

Alinsky points out the Christian church because it was through the churches in Chicago that he first began to implement his strategies. When he approached Pastors, he found that it was nearly impossible to speak to them about Christianity (or so he says) because they were focused on the church, the people, the money and all that made up the infrastructure of the institution and not on the philosophy or theology that guided that institution. [1]

Why is this important to understand? It points out a basic flaw. People often profess one thing and then live in complete contradiction to what they profess, or at the very least neglect the things they claim to be most important in favor of the most expedient.

Let us be clear that people being people are generally going to fall short of any expectations they put upon themselves. The key Alinsky found was that this could be used to discredit those making claims they did not live up to. It is a deceptively simple and powerful tactic.

For example, suppose someone you know is encouraging you to stop smoking (oh, I don’t know let’s just say it’s the President of the United States) because they assure you that they are concerned about your health. They know the dangers of tobacco and they care about you. You really need to stop smoking so you can be around to be their friend.

Now let’s suppose you find out that this person (oh, I don’t know let’s just say it’s the President of the United States again) is actually smoking themselves. The next time they tell you that you need to quit smoking, what is the first thing you’re going to say? You are going to say, “Hey, wait a minute. Don’t lecture me about smoking when I happen to know you do it yourself”.  You would be telling them to live up to their own book or rules-this is Alinsky’s fourth rule, and it is a strategy against which it is difficult to defend.

How has Obama used it?

Sarah Palin:  In an article entitled, “I still hate you, Sarah Palin” the author lays out how Obama eviscerated Palin with Rules for Radicals and finishes by saying this,

“What you clowns need, in other words, is a Rules for Radical Conservatives to explain what you’re up against and teach you how to compete before it’s too late.” [2]

In essence what I am presenting through these series of articles is the framework of just such a manual for Conservatives (yes, a book on this does exist). While Conservatives are beginning to come around to what Rules for Radicals is all about, I have been screaming about it for way too long now.

They destroyed Palin, or Palinized her, because she was too nice to fight back using their own tactics, or because the McCain handlers held her back.  I don’t think she’d make that same mistake again. In fact, there were signs towards the end of the campaign that her “going rogue” was about finally fighting back. Remember, “Paling around with terrorists”?

An important point to consider: one does not need to sink fully to the levels of Alinsky style tactics to defeat them. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. Knowing how to spot them, how to counteract them, and when to use them and when not to is the key to beating this insidious political methodology.

The author of the above article came to the conclusion that Palin was just too nice. The result was that she was destroyed by rule four. Her pregnant daughter is perhaps the best example. Constantly harping on the fact that Palin believed in abstinence and had a daughter who was pregnant out of wedlock beat her nearly to death.

At the same time, Obama was telling everyone that his family was off limits. In fact, he feigned that he felt Palin’s family should be off limits. All this happened while Axelrod, Plouffe and the rest of the hit squad were finding every way possible to trash Palin and her family. Obama did what he always does – he distanced himself from the despicable attacks by using his proxies. All the while, however, we know full well that none of it was happening without the approval of Obama. Challenge me on this one if you would like to Mr. President.

Rather than try to write a book here instead of an article, let me just mention that similar tactics were used against McCain, Bush, the GOP, our military, Hillary Clinton, and Geraldine Ferraro amongst others, but I’ll save that for a potential book.

How to recognize it and counteract it.

Recognizing it. This is one of the easiest Alinsky rules to spot. Whenever you hear arguments like, “You claim to be a Christian, but …” or “When Republicans were in charge, they …” or any of a thousand other versions, you can be sure it is an Alinsky inspired attack using the fourth rule.

Conteracting it. The single most important thing to remember is that this rule works both ways. The best defense in this case is a good offense. You need not use the rule if you choose not to, but if you are attacked with this tactic it is always better to turn the discussion back to your opponent and show them where they do not live up to their rule book.

In addition, it is critical that you don’t paint yourself as some moral saint. If you do, every single failing will bring refrains of hypocrisy from your detractors. Be very careful how you present yourself. Make as few claims as possible.

Using the rule yourself.

So can a Conservative, with good conscience, use the fourth rule to their advantage? Absolutely! There is nothing wrong with asking any politician to live up to their own standards. Let’s take a few obvious examples of how Conservatives can use the fourth rule against Obama and his Administration.

Transparency:

Candidate Obama made some very specific promises regarding transparency. One such promise was his pledge to allow everyone to see the behind the scenes haggling over health care reform.

Now that seems pretty clear right? But what has actually happened? Well, things devolved so badly that the Democrats trying to meld Senate Bills actually changed the locks on the doors to their meeting room to keep Republicans out. The inconsistency is clear and documented. Use it against those who oppose you. [3]

Once again candidate Obama was big on transparency.

In fact he continues to claim that his Administration is the most transparent in history. Such a claim would clearly require an entirely new definition of the word “transparency”.  Judging by his conversation with George Stephanopolus, he isn’t entirely convinced by dictionary definitions.

Another area to at least be mentioned is Obama’s promises to keep lobbyists out of his Administration. You need only view one of the videos above to see that he made such promises. However, he has not even come close to living up to this promise. This subject would require at least an entire article dedicated to this subject alone, but the subject matter should provide fodder for those trying to press the Administration to live up to its book of rules.

Let me restate that. We should not be asking “The Administration” to live up to their book of rules; we should be demanding that President Obama live up to his own book of rules. You will see when we study rule 13 that it is important to make sure your target is personalized. An Administration is not personalizing your attack. Challenging Barack Obama is personalizing your target.

There are many other ways you can challenge President Obama to live up to his book of rules, or to challenge any politician to live up to their book of rules. For example, the takeover of GM and the abrogation of bankruptcy laws is an example of failing to live up to their own rules. This is a matter of his belief in the rule of law and his violation of it and his profession of a belief in capitalism and his violation of it.

Some other ideas to hold people responsible for living up to their own book of rules:

• Chris Dodd and his troubles with Countrywide.
• Charlie Rangel writing tax code he does not live up to.
• Timothy Geithner in charge of Treasury and the IRS when he clearly avoided paying his taxes.
• Nancy Pelosi’s promise to “Drain the swamp” as Speaker of the House, and yet she allows corruption like Rangel to continue.
• Rep. Grayson claiming Republicans want you to “die quickly” and then calling out Joe Wilson on his remarks and making ridiculous statements about the holocaust and Republicans.

The list is far too long, but I think you get the idea.

Summary

The fourth rule is a powerful one, and it is perhaps the easiest one to use effectively. Politicians in particular make very easy targets for this tactic. Simply find out what they’ve claimed about themselves and/or what they claim to believe and then find ways that they have violated those claims.

Don’t even feel guilty for demanding that people actually live up to their own book of rules!

Works Cited

[1] Alinsky, Saul Rules for Radicals. Toronto: Vintage Publishing 1971

[2] I Still Hate You, Sarah Palin by David Kahane on National Review Online. Available at: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDE3MmE5MDVmMGM1YjQ2NmVhMjJkN2I2ZTcxMzhlNjU=&w=MQ==. [Accessed October 28, 2009].

[3] House Democrats Lock GOP Out of Committee Room – WSJ.com. Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574485783622311444.html [Accessed October 28, 2009].

Private Announcements

The tinyUrl for this page is: http://tinyurl.com/yg22586

Update(10/24/2009): Sorry I’m behind on this because of medical issues. Please don’t stop. I’m getting there. Thanks.

Update (10/17/2009) : Please continue to help me here ( and with all the @’s and  DM’s on twiter). I now have 40 or 50 more. For those of you waiting to get in – please be patient. I’m just trying to be careful. Thanks.

I’m using a new account to provide you with private announcements. Go to @boredwithyou and send a request. From here on out it will take at least 3 people verifying that you are trustworthy to get in. If anyone sneaked in, I will publish the originals here soon. Tell me if someone should not be there.

You can vote by comment here or by @’ing me on twitter.

Check back here for people we need to verify.

Thanks everyone.

Please vote on these people waiting for approval:

• sunlover591
• Dogloverusa
• greatcasinos
• medlas
• Smokestack716
• lbutrico
• Kelliesheleen
• keepthemhonest
• gadsdenlivefree
• Donta247
• mediacritics
• Jacklyn_002
• Whitters3360
• brigitta3
• its_bj
• stevenwilson
• RocketmanBob
• repeater75
• PT_Burnem_
• DavidAxelr0d
• jduryee
• babyboomer1960
• hermantile
• tippy2bunz
• Bitter_American
• mrsamosbardi
• ToddOH43
• imnextdoor
• voiceasaweapon
• darkstarr65
• Ptalian
• angelfrmcanada
• Deberra
• TIMEINOUT

I’m sorry if I should have known you better, but better safe than sorry.

Some Predictions on Afghanistan

Today – October 15, 2009 I would like to analyze what I see happening with the politics of the war in Afghanistan and where I predict things will go.

There seems to be an ongoing effort to make Vice President Joe Biden appear as an expert in foreign affairs. This despite the fact that he has heretofore been relegated to a position of near anonymity by this Administration. Why? I believe the answer is that President Obama has no intention of sending anything close to the 40,000 troops requested by General McChrystal, and he needs a fall guy. By painting Biden as the foreign affairs genius, he can put in a much smaller number of troops and say that Biden’s vast foreign policy experience is why he was selected as VP.
So why would he do this? First, as I said, it gives the President political cover as he refuses the requests of a General he hand-picked to run the theater in Afghanistan. Second, it buys him time to attempt to push through Health-Care reform. By appeasing his far left, and not completely alienating Democratic moderates he puts himself in prime position to weave a coalition of Democrats and very left-leaning Repbulicans (read Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins) to pass the Health-Care legislation. Frankly, I believe this is the primary reason since he knows that a total loss on Health-Care would be an unmitigated disaster for his Presidency. Third, he believes he can buy enough time in Afghanistan with fewer troops (or possibly not adding any at this time) to keep from losing there completely while he passes his domestic agenda. After this he may well get serious about Afghanistan.

So what are the predictions?  Admittedly, I’m going to give myself a wide berth here, but here are my predictions:

1. By the first week of November, the President will either: A) Decide to stand pat with his troop count and switch his strategy from counterinsurgency to counterterroism, or B) He will decide to send a much smaller amount of troops – probably on the order of 10,000. Either way, Biden is cover.  The former would mean backing off and doing more by remote means such as drones – per Biden’s advice.
2. Once Health-Care and Cap and Trade legislation (and possibly immigration reform) he will do a 180 on Afghanistan and ramp it up, knowing that it is the only way to actually be successful. He will then throw Biden under the bus (it’s getting crowded under there) and declare that he is doing what he should have done to begin with.

If Health-Care reform goes down in flames and there is nothing he can even remotely claim as a victory concerning the Health-Care agenda – all bets are off.

A final note. We should keep in mind that both Obama and Biden have shown themselves to be very wrong in matters of war. Obama famously opposed the surge in Iraq. The surge then went on to succeed and helped lead to his election. Biden has been just ridiculously wrong. He opposed the Gulf War, supported the Iraq invasion, called for a division of Iraq into three separate provinces, and opposed the surge.

For my part, I was against going into Iraq, but convinced that once there, we were morally bound to clean up our mess, and so I supported the surge.