Alinsky and His Rules for Radicals

April 5, 2013 at 10:05 AM 5 comments

It is not difficult at all to see what has transpired in America (and much of the world) since Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was published in 1971 and taken to heart by the Left as their mantra for world re-education and peace.  Here are his rules.

  • RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from two main sources – money and people; therefore, “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
  • RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” This results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
  • RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
  • RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
  • RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
  • RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
  • RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
  • RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off-balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
  • RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
  • RULE 10: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is the unceasing pressure that will result in the reaction of the opposition that is essential for the success of the campaign.
  • RULE 11: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
  • RULE 12: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
  • RULE 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Consider Rule #1. If something simply appears to be a majority, many will accept it as a true majority.  The media tries hard to comply with this.

Rule #1 also implies a form of Marxism.  The “have-nots” must become the “haves.”  They must have power and in order to have that, they must take perceived power away from those who have it.  The rest of the rules talk about how to do that.

Jump down to Rule #5.  This is something that the Left absolutely excels in.  We witnessed it live with the debate (such as it was) between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan, during which Biden used facial expressions as well as words to ridicule Ryan.  Notice that Alinsky states that using ridicule has no defense because he admits that it is irrational.

We listen to some political pundit spend three to five minutes panning someone like Dr. Ben Carson and they might eventually get into actually presenting a fact.  A person responding to it has two options:  join in the ridicule or ignore by treating it as if it does not exist.  The latter option gets tiring quickly.

Ridicule is what is used on the child’s playground when insults fly vehemently back and forth between two children who are not capable of actually dealing with facts.  This tells us a good deal about the Left.

One morning I was watching Chris Matthews and he was on a kick about Sarah Palin.  As he introduced the subject, he insulted her no less than five times.  He started out by calling Palin a “balloon head.”  Remember when sticks and stones could break bones, but names could never hurt you?  The Left never got that memo.

Rule #8 is also interesting; keeping the pressure up.  During the “Fast and Furious” and “Benghazi” situations, the media that is firmly in bed with the Left kept the pressure up, but on who?  They went into attack mode against anyone who dared question the Obama administration.  Instead of doing their level best to get all the facts, they simply resorted to pressuring people who wanted the facts by charging them with “politicizing” the situation.  When that didn’t work, they fell back on the one thing that had worked and played the race card.  The Left is like some huge bouncer that has only one job – to keep you away from the club.

You notice how much these events are in the news now, right? They’re not and anyone who brings them up is accused of racism, politics, or both.  Many of us would like to see justice, but that’s too much to ask, apparently.  Political correctness does not seek justice.  It seeks “equality” and “freedom” and it uses the race card often to achieve it.

This has nothing to do with journalistic integrity and everything to do with Alinsky’s methods for those who wish to radicalize people of America for Marxist change.  For the longest time, every honest question from conservatives was simply met with “You’re a racist!” by the Left.  The fact that they created this protective wall around Obama and his administration simply made folks think all the more that something was being hidden.

Rule #9 is funny.  We heard “sequester” as if it was the largest demon one can imagine hiding just off stage in the shadows.  Under no circumstances did we want to allow that demon to gain center stage!  Sequester.  It’s bad.  It will mean this, that, and the other thing as America heads over the fiscal cliff.

We finally have sequester and what has happened?  Not much.  Certainly, Obama acts as if there is no sequester.  He’s released $500 million to the Middle East that had been frozen by Congress.  Can he do that? No one is asking the question as it’s probably considered “racist,” though just the other day he stated he was “constrained” by the Constitution with respect to the 2nd Amendment.  Really?  I don’t believe he actually believes that, but time will tell.

Obama continues to have ultra-expensive parties at the White House “mansion,” but is “forced” to close White House tours because of sequester even after people offer to pay for them.  The DHS spends $50 million on new uniforms, buys over a billion dollars’ worth of ammo, spends millions for lightweight armored tanks and scarfs up 7,000 AR (good defensive) weapons.

It’s a joke really.  Alinsky was right.  Talking up sequester made it appear worse than it actually is when all is said and done.  But we still have three more years of Obama’s tax and spend policies, though little to nothing is actually spent here in America to help create jobs.

Rule #11 is also interesting and we saw this at work with the unions and their “struggles” last year.  Unfortunately, people have lost sympathy for unions because of the thug tactics they use.  Darn.  Of course, it also helps when the media portrays unions as only wanting what’s best for employees, even if that means that businesses like Hostess wind up closing their doors.  Hey, where are the unions’ concern for those employees now?

Rule #13 was employed during the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting aftermath.  Zimmerman was the isolated target cut off from sympathy.  He was portrayed as a “white/Hispanic” in order to incite blacks against whites.  MSNBC deliberately edited audio/video on at least two separate occasions to portray Zimmerman in a negative (and untruthful) light.  The goal was to pump up Martin in spite of what may have actually transpired during that encounter.  I’m glad Zimmerman is suing.  I cannot imagine him getting a fair trial, I’m afraid though.

The press essentially charged Zimmerman, found him guilty, and then called for his execution (by printing a story of the New Black Panthers and their offer of money for Zimmerman – dead or alive prior to his arrest).  The public was whipped up and of course, Al Sharpton played his part in the debacle as well.  The Left can always count on that racist to foment ill will toward whites.

The media went even further by obviously Photoshopping pictures of Martin to make him appear less of a thug.  They never printed the photos of Martin from his own social network page showing him double flipping off the viewer with low-hanging pants.  The only photos they showed were in his football uniform and those of that nature. But of course, the media also had no problem doctoring photos of Zimmerman so that cuts and bruises on his nose and back of head could not be seen.

Yet, even though we have many examples of how the media lies because of their Left-leaning bias, there are still people who say, “Bias? What bias?” when it comes to the media.  When they are not being biased, they are simply admitting what they do not know, as in the case of a commentator on CBS recently stating that John the Baptist was at the crucifixion of Jesus. [1]  Yes, they corrected that later, but a bit of research ahead of time on their part would have eliminated the error before it occurred.  Maybe they meant John’s ghost.

There’s a lot more to Alinsky than simply these rules as listed.  It’s all in his book and I suggest purchasing it, if for no other reason than to know what the Left’s playbook is all about.

It seems to me that the Left has been working overtime to prevent true dialogue for one reason.  They know that the facts are not on their side, so they ignore the facts and go for the proverbial jugular.  It’s easier.  It’s also better for ratings if you happen to have a radio or TV show.  I’m really surprised that outright lying was not specifically one of Alinsky’s rules, although it is implied in several of them.

Remember, Alinsky is the guy who threw a high-five to “Lucifer” in his book.  He thought it was great that Lucifer (Satan) had enough guts to stand up to God and because of it, received his own kingdom.  Of course, what Alinsky pays no attention to is that Satan’s kingdom is very temporary. He won’t always be the god of this world.

Had Satan not stood up to God and then not inserted himself as the prime reason for humanity’s fall, Satan would also not be currently bound up in the same limitations that humanity suffers from:  time.  Whether he likes it or not, Satan is bound by the same laws of time that we are bound by.  At some point in time, his kingdom will end and he will reap the rewards of his treachery.

Satan, Alinsky, and too many others can then spend their respective eternities discussing what went wrong and why Satan was not powerful enough to overcome the very God he stood up to in the first place.  For that matter, neither was Alinsky.


Entry filed under: Political Correctness, Politically Correct, Politics. Tags: , .

Still MORE Politically Correct Violence Politically Correct Race War & Reparations


  • 1. Sherry  |  April 9, 2013 at 12:49 PM

    Forgotto post the YT link! 😳

  • 2. Sherry  |  April 9, 2013 at 11:32 AM

    The whole of this article I agree with.

    But I do have to say this: if George Zimmerman is found guilty, then justice has been served. He had two opportunities to introduce himself to Martin and chose not to. The bullethole location in Martin’s sweatshirt reveals that Zimmerman was holding Martin down by that sweatshirt when he shot him. That was Trayvon screaming for help (why would an armed man be screaming?) and those minor wounds on Zimmerman were probably from Trayvon wailing away at him to get free. However, that is debateable because there were no wounds or bruises on Trayvon’s hands save a tiny old cut. And why do so many people call Trayvon a thug as if George did a service in killing him? Not meaning you but there are those who act as if Zimmerman knew he was taking down a thug. There are also videos on You Tube showing Zimmerman’s lies and inconsistancies in the investigartion. Sorry for the rant but it gets to me when I see Zimmerman defended and treated as the poster boy for gun rights all on the basis of what the media did to his reputation-which was not right-and knows nothing of the autopsy report and evidence so far revealed (or they are ignoring the facts because it doesn’t fit their agenda). I would like the conservatives and 2nd Amendment/NRA supporters to stop holding Zimmerman up because it will not end well for their cause when Zimmerman is found guilty of murder.

    BTW, if people saw my teenage pictures when I belonged to a girl gang they would think I was a hopeless thug, too. It was just a phase of wanting to be cool…

    • 3. modres  |  April 9, 2013 at 11:45 AM

      All I want for Zimmerman is a fair trial and unfortunately, the way the whole thing played out in the media was designed to preempt that.

      As for your assertions, there are several ways to look at things. I was not aware that Zimmerman was holding Martin down by the sweatshirt.

      Do we know for sure that it was Martin screaming? I thought the audio created an uncertainty.

      George received a broken nose and a somewhat moderate cut(s) on the back of his head from it being pounded into the pavement (according to Zimmerman).

      I agree with you that many were not saddened by Martin’s death because he looked the part of a thug. He is in eternity now, with no chance of a reprieve and that should cause sadness.

      The big problem (if you want to call it that) is the “Stand Your Ground” (also known as “Castle Doctrine”) law that existed when Zimmerman shot Martin. Ultimately, he MUST be tried under THAT law, regardless of what the law is now. In that case, Zimmerman was under no obligation to flee or to introduce himself. If he felt there was a threat to him, then he could respond to that threat using deadly force. That is what the law allowed.

      My understanding is that Martin came up behind him (as Zimmerman was walking back to his car), and jumped him, knocking him to the ground.

      The truth of all these facts will come out (hopefully) during the trial. The problem though is that according to one famous lawyer, there is NOTHING in the indictment for 2nd degree murder against Zimmerman that PROVES it. It is ABSENT and there is serious doubt that the jury will come back with a guilty verdict. It’s almost as if the prosecution overshot the issue by charging him with 2nd degree murder, instead of manslaughter.

      If anything, it will be the “Stand Your Ground” law that creates a huge problem for the prosecution. This is why I am concerned about him getting a FAIR trial. The media circus will prevail, Sharpton will do his part, and if Zimmerman is found guilty of 2nd degree murder, I believe that will not be justice. If he gets off scott free, Sharpton will whip up the black community into a frenzy over it.

      Either way, no one will win.

      • 4. Sherry  |  April 9, 2013 at 12:48 PM

        It was Martin’s mother that said that was her son. Of all the people I will believe, she is the one-its a “mom” thing. Like I said, no one with a gun screams for help. Here is a YT channel by, if I recall correctly, a retired police investigator. He has done a good job of scutinizing this case and has timelines and such.

        I agree with the overshot on the charges. IMO, if Zimmerman walks, it will have been an injustice. Not unlike the Casey Anthony case where the prosecutors overshot with putting the Death Penalty on the table.

        The one chance Zimmerman had to introduce himself was the first time he encountered Trayvon while on the phone with NE911 in his vehicle. How could GZ feel threatened then? And, why the pursuit? Why get out of the vehicle if he felt threatened? His second chance was when Martin asked him why he wasfollowing him. I don’t think the SYG law will apply to this case but we shall know on Aprill 22nd when the hearing is.

      • 5. modres  |  April 9, 2013 at 1:43 PM

        As you say, we will see what happens.

        You know, frankly, the last thing I would EVER want to do is shoot someone and if I knew they had no weapon, it would be very difficult to use lethal force to subdue them.

        Sometimes, I think it is better to carry a stun gun, which is usually non-lethal, unless the person has real heart problems. The idea is to incapacitate them long enough to be able to run away.

        If you learn more, let us know, Sherry.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,529 other followers

Our Books on Amazon

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 867,160 hits

%d bloggers like this: