Blogging Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: Prologue
Regrettably, I know that had I gone to my 10th, 15th, or 20th reunion, I would have scoffed at my former classmates leading empty and shallow lives — a la Alinsky, whose sophisticated focus is on:
The absurdity of human affairs and the forlornness and emptiness, the fearful loneliness that comes from not knowing if there is any meaning to our lives (p. xvii).
My guess is that the poor schlemiels Alinsky judges are absurd enough to believe their lives have meaning. And when you get right down to it, who the hell is he to judge? Isn’t this, as my husband would tell our 12 children, cutting off others’ heads to make yourself taller? Is Alinsky’s — along with those who claim his blessing — the only life worth living?
Credit where it’s due:
- Alinsky does not mince words about his contempt for the Weather Underground (personified today as Obama buddy William Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn) (xvii). He takes 60s radicals to task for trashing the American flag (xviii) and for setting up any barriers to communication through attachment to counterculture symbols like long hair. Alinsky’s pragmatism means that if long hair means fewer converts to radicalism, the radical should cut his hair (xix).
- Alinsky does not worship leftist icons like Mao, Che, and Castro, “which are as germane to our highly technological, computerized, cybernetic, nuclear-powered, mass media society as a stagecoach on a jet runway at Kennedy airport.” He appreciates the freedoms we share as Americans, scolding young radicals, “Let’s keep some perspective” (xxi). Alinsky radicals like Anita Dunn seem to have missed this memo.
- While he is about fomenting discontent to accomplish his ends, he warns: “Parts of the far left have gone so far in the political circle that they are now all but indistinguishable from the extreme right.” (Wonder what he would make of O & Co. and their repressive tactics with FOX News and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.)
Alinsky strongly believes in working inside the system, instructing young radicals that their task is to change the attitude of the masses:
They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go the past and chance the future (xix).
When he speaks of cozying up to the “blue collar” or “hard hat” class (and I need to point out here that in the 60s these occupational class distinctions were much starker than they are today, when you do find college graduates working as contractors), at first I was impressed with Alinsky’s egalitarianism (xx).
But just one sentence later, it is clear that the intent was not recognition of fellow human beings in their diversity, but exploitation of another class which might otherwise be lost to the radical agenda. Almost 40 years later, we’ve seen solidarity between the radicals and working class — delivered by union bosses — become an almost impenetrable political fortress. Think SEIU.
Alinsky’s naked contempt for his fellow man begs the question: Is it the American way of life that dehumanizes man? Or is it the radical/elitist view of Alinsky and his followers? (As well as Nazi Germany, Russia, and China?) In 2009, one certainly sees this naked contempt from the highest White House echelons to the teensiest trolls who prowl conservative blogs with vicious personal attacks and little substantive discussion.
Alinsky wraps up his prologue with such inspirational lines as:
- The spirit of democracy is the idea of importance and worth in the individual (xxiv).
- There can be no darker or more devastating tragedy than the death of man’s faith in himself and in his power to direct his future (xxvi).
Alinsky — insofar as he’s revealed himself in the prologue — shows no respect for the individuality of man and thinks of them only in terms of masses waiting for the direction of enlightened radicals.
Thirty-eight years later, we are confronting the legacy of this elitist and empty philosophy.
——
It has already been suggested by a reader that Alinsky’s political strategies have merit for conservatives and I can’t help but agree. For organizational purposes, I will save this discussion for a postscript, but feel free to indulge yourselves in the comments as you see fit.
Chapter One, pages 3-23, on Monday.
I often used to ponder on the strange similarity between the far left and the far right where there should have been a complete dichotomy. To resolve this apparent contradiction, I would come to the conclusion that if you went to far in either direction, yes I’m a sci-fi fan, you’d end up in the same place. But wait! Perhaps if, as we see, it’s the left that are the progressive collectivists and the right that are selfish individualists, we’ve merely been hoodwinked into thinking some left wing ideologies were somehow extreme right. The great collectivist experiments of the 20th century were all disasters and the blame had to be spread around. Logically and in actuality, those of the extreme right would be single individuals or small groups of like thinking people taking their individual rights very seriously. To the extent that they totally oppose the collective. Randall McMurtry in One Flew Over a Cuckoo’s Nest. The anti-union, Hank Stamper in Sometimes a Great Notion. Down With Big Brother!
Alinsky, like Ayers, has nothing in his heart but disdain for his fellow man. Disdain, condescention and a false feeling of superiority are the markers pointing to an empty soul.
Empty souls fill that void with their own ego. “Follow me, I, alone, know the answer to the riddle of life. I’ll be your saviour.” Well, thanks but no thanks.
I’ll listen to my conscience instead.
Ms. Curtis has done a masterful job making accessible Alinsky’s underlying motivations. The word that comes to mind when considering the combination of Alinsky’s solipsism, nihlism and cunning is evil.
“Alinsky strongly believes in working inside the system…”
There is, as is often the case, an ordinariness or blandness to acts of evil, and to evil people themselves. Alinsky certainly fits the bill.
Thank you for the excellent job of commenting.
You go very deep into the dark mindset of this typical nihilist.
It seems to me that the scariest point is that the nihilists substitute the QUEST for the Truth (i.e., the Quest for God) with a search for ANY meaning for human life (AT ANY COST). This opens the road to a dogmatic and absolutistic frame of mind…BECAUSE the nihilists NEED their ideologies TO SURVIVE psychologically: without their ideologies they would probably fall into some kind of (open, as opposed as their usual covert) depression.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
“Barbara Curtis is a wife, mother of 12″
So how much money have you received from the US Government, you welfare queen?
Dave K: “So how much money have you received from the US Government, you welfare queen?”
Gee, Ms. Curtis acceptance/non-acceptance of any Gov’t assistance certainly has a lot of bearing on whether she’s capable of critiquing the Alinsky theoretics, huh.
Yet more evidence that Lefties are incapable of intelligent topical discussion and must instead, when confronted with an argument they cannot refute, rely on the “politics of personal destruction” Hilary hypocritically bemoaned years ago
good article.i was relieved that it was not a hit piece.
dk: That was your rebuttal? That’s it? Didn’t get your quotes and ideas from Kos/CAP early enough so you had to use your own brain. Such a thing to waste.
Your hall pass will be revoked for a month.
Interesting. Am looking forward to each segment of this series.
PS Dave K–Barbara isn’t a parasite. But anyone that has 12 kids and is a mom MUST be a parasite. LOL what a silly, angry, hatefilled little man.
“He takes 60s radicals to task for trashing the American flag (xviii) and for setting up any barriers to communication through attachment to counterculture symbols like long hair.”
Saul Alinsky was also unbelievably successful in convincing Roman Catholics that his class war social philosophy was reconcilable to theirs. So much so, papal loyalist Jacques Maritain bizarrely wrote that his concept of People’s Organizations shows “the manner in which one of our great problems—how real leaders can emerge from and be chosen by real people—is to be solved…Saul Alinsky’s book (Reveille for Radicals) is specifically American.”
“There is, as is often the case, an ordinariness or blandness to acts of evil, and to evil people themselves. Alinsky certainly fits the bill.”
I disagree, to a point. Hannah Arendt certainly showed–well, the banality of evil–in her same named-book, but I think she’s too focused on the evildoer within a certain kind of closed system. In the open and free world evil shows its true genius–and one of it’s greatest tricks is fool people into thinking that it doesn’t exist while simultaneously hoodwinking them by proclaiming their complicity in evil whether Original Sin or harboring lustful thoughts about a woman on a bus on the way to church.
Banality, in a truely evil context, is camoflage. True evil is cunning, as you accurately point out, but in the end cannot resist being boastful. Someone unconsciously or unwillingly acting on evil’s behalf will remain silent and guard their secret–either out of ignorance or shame.
Alinsky simultaneously trumpeted his evil while attempting to conceal it. He was exposed only because he succeeded as well as he did–had Lucifer just muttered under his breath he might still be in Heaven….
Whittaker Chambers had a lot to say about this kind of thinking. His main point was that when you start to believe that the mind of man is the greatest thing in the universe, you end up with people like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. who manage to convince others to join the religions in which they, the dictators, are gods. The truth is that men have to serve something greater than any imperfect, fallible human being. In Browning’s words, A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?
It’s instructive that Lucifer, in the Judeo- Christian tradition, sought to become higher than the most high and was cast out and in the end devotes himself to destroying mankind in a futile attempt to hurt God. Milton has Lucifer saying that it is better to rule in Hell than serve in heaven.
Alinsky seems to be claiming that he is serving the poor by helping them topple the “power structure” of society or at least shake it down. But as you say, it’s a nihilistic vision, without anything noble, uplifting or transcending; defined by goals that really don’t give people anything lasting. He’s obviously the model for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
As I’ve read about Alinsky, I’ve been reminded of Tom Wolfe’s report from 1970, “Mau-mauing the Flakcatchers.” But what has Obama achieved by following Alinsky’s methods? He’s become the flakcatcher-in-chief and really has nowhere to turn, because he may have succeeded in seizing power, he really has no clear idea of what to do with it. He capitalized on popular unhappiness with George W. Bush, but now we’re finding that he had no plans or concepts beyond passing a series of big spending bills and hoping for the best.
Alinsky was right insofar as the far left is indistinguishable from the far right. Both believe in manipulating the masses for their own extremist ends, and both share a mutual contempt for the ordinary, centered mass of humans. This contempt and conscienceless penchant for manipulation gives rise to movements like communism in an earlier era, the violent religious fundamentalism that is most notably evident in Islamic militarism, and the present totalitarian-leaning environmentalist movement. All of these philosophies completely subvert the humanitarian principles they ostensibly trumpet.
Alinsky might have deplored the views of Timothy McVeigh, or the various and sundry Jihadis, but he would have applauded their methods.
The dedication in the first edition of “Rules for Radicals”–hmmmm, wonder why they changed it?
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: From all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
Nuff said!
For “Barbara Curtis is a wife, mother of 12, and author of nine books,” she must be an admirable person. I can’t visualize someone with 12 kids to write books and blogs unless you are a master in productivity and organization with great intellectual capacity.
She as the gift for writing. That alone provides her with adequate cash flow. Her husband’s business is a good source of support. He surely works hard. She found the secret of having a numerous tribe as another source of income through tax exemptions, deductions and credits. Don’t get me wrong. It’s all under the flag of entrepreneurship and capitalism. She really knows the system.
But, returning to our subject of this article, I find it boring.
Alinksy should’ve gotten into playing the ponies. He and everyone else would’ve been happier.
Thanks Barbara. I have sent out your web address to my friends and we will follow your review.
Dave K and vivo,
“In 2009, one certainly sees this naked contempt from the highest White House echelons to the teensiest trolls who prowl conservative blogs with vicious personal attacks and little substantive discussion.”
You both were spanked by “mommy” before you could get your thumbs out of your mouths…mom’s are like that ya know…now go to your rooms…LOL.
18. nmewn:
“to the teensiest trolls who prowl conservative blogs with vicious personal attacks and little substantive discussion.”
Who’s the troll here?
vivo,
Do you believe her comment was directed at me???…LOL.
I believe it was directed…specifically…at trolls who make comments on conservative blogs…comments perhaps like this;
“She found the secret of having a numerous tribe as another source of income through tax exemptions, deductions and credits. Don’t get me wrong. It’s all under the flag of entrepreneurship and capitalism. She really knows the system.”
Being a troll and attacking the messenger, in this case Barbra Curtis (or being thin skinned and attacking a defender of Mom & Apple Pie) are glaring examples of what’s wrong with the democrat party today.
Good luck with that junior, but by all means, please continue
“The teensiest troll”. I wonder which one it is. Perhaps we should have a vote. But first, is it the teensiest in terms of insignificance, smallness of stature or of intellect? Or is it their, well, you know? For teensiest troll, even though vivo is is actively campaigning for it, I vote for the simpering David S. followed closely by the truly moonfried, Now and Then.
it is clear that the intent was not recognition of fellow human beings in their diversity, but exploitation of another class which might otherwise be lost to the radical agenda. Almost 40 years later, we’ve seen solidarity between the radicals and working class — delivered by union bosses — become an almost impenetrable political fortress. Think SEIU.
What is glaringly obvious is that the Left’s phoney concern for “the working man” turns into snarling hatred and contempt as soon as the working man ceases to follow marching orders from the leftist elites. (Just as Dems revert to their racist origins just as soon as uppity blacks leave their plantation.) Alinsky’s book was written before the blue-collar “Reagan Democrat” emerged in 1980. Now it is quite common for blue-collar whites to be described as “trash,” “racist,” “rednecks” and so on. The days of “The Grapes of Wrath” and Woody Gutherie are long gone.
Good article, Barb. Your 12 children are blessed to have parents with their heads screwed on straight.
AST:
Thanks for bringing up Chambers, an anti-Alinsky if ever there was one. “Witness” is one of the great books of the 20th century – and a reminder that he faced even darker times with courage and resolve.
Dodeca-mom, a creature more disgusting than octo-mom, wrote:
“What stands out: The emptiness of atheism. The solipsistic response of the human heart where there is no God. Alinsky — just as I and other former radical comrades — supposes that if you aren’t living the philosophically nihilistic life of a radical then you are a mindless automaton with no human vitality, creativity, or value.”
What stands out: The emptiness of religion. The need to have an imaginary entity to prevent oneself from behaving like an animal is not only sad, but also immature.
To quote a great philosopher:
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.
Dave K.: I’m so sorry your mother never loved you.
It’s the only explanation I can think of for why you are such a ugly, hate-filled bigot.
Poor Dave.
20. nmewn:
‘“She found the secret of having a numerous tribe as another source of income through tax exemptions, deductions and credits. Don’t get me wrong. It’s all under the flag of entrepreneurship and capitalism. She really knows the system.”
Being a troll and attacking the messenger, in this case Barbra Curtis’
I guess you don’t understand taxes. If you analyze her own statements about her life and résumé, this is not an attack. Ask her yourself. Then tell me.
vivo,
“I guess you don’t understand taxes.”
As a matter of fact I do.
It is you who don’t understand what income is. Income are your earnings. Look at your statement again. After taxes are what you are “allowed” to keep by the state. You cannot derive “income” through deductions…you can only keep MORE of what you EARNED to begin with.
I always know I’m talking with a leftist moonbat when I see a comment like “he/she/they got another source of income by doing X with the tax code”.
No, they kept more of what they originally “earned” as it is THEIRS to begin with.
Goodbye vivo.
nmewn
Alinsky really looks the part of the pseudointellectual rationalizer for mass murder.In fact, he looks like that other famous radical,Heinrich Himmler.Just picture Sol in an SS uniform;he and Heinrich seem to have been separated at birth!
#15 VIVO: You can’ refute Ms. Curtis, so you attempt to demean her decision to have a family, and imply that she’s not credible because she’s a mother. You are a “CL ASS ” act VIVO! But then, How can you expect someone who knows that his feminazi mother considered aborting him ,to understand maternal love. After reading your posts,she should consider aborting you retroactively.
27. nmewn:
U still don’t understand 1040 stuff, and didn’t ask her.
The Left is elitist and disdainful of those who don’t agree with them?
Nah.
As the quotes above certainly demonstrate, Leftists are paragons of caring, compassion, and selflessness.
Donna V.@25:
“Dave K.: I’m so sorry your mother never loved you.
It’s the only explanation I can think of for why you are such a ugly, hate-filled bigot.
Poor Dave.”
I only had two dads, actually.
#32 DAVE spewed: “I only had two dads actually”. Yes, and they were both syphillitic.
deguello@33:
“#32 DAVE spewed: “I only had two dads actually”. Yes, and they were both syphillitic.”
Despite all the hardship, we remained positive. HIV-positive, that is.
RebeccaH (#13) links the left and “far right” with the same tactics, but in fact there is no viable far right in the United States. Conservatives do not use the tactics of socialism. Conservatives embrace the U. S. Constitutional approach to governance.
As an independent tea party participant, I am quite aware of Alinsky and Rules for Radicals. I have a copy in my house, but it nauseates me to read it, so I haven’t finished it yet.
In your final paragraph, you stated:
I too have considered that, but as I said, I find the tactics so nauseating that I am loathe to use them. I wonder if we could brainstorm on an effective Anti-Alinksy cookbook that would blunt or deflect those attacks, while using truth and reason to sell the principles of liberty and justice for all.