How far will the radical left go to gain power? To keep power? To win?
If you know where to look, the answers are there. There is a playbook.
In 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote a little book called Rules for Radicals. No man has ever written a book which has more clearly and succinctly expressed his beliefs. Alinsky begins by stating the purpose of his book:
“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
Alinsky minces no words as to what that involves. “In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people. ... This means revolution.”
But does he really mean revolution? Yes. For Alinsky, any means that the Have-Nots employ to seize power that will work to achieve that end are acceptable.
“Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The end is what you want, and the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”
But do truth and morals in any way limit the acceptability of the means? For Alinsky, they don’t. For Alinsky, there is no such thing as objective truth.
“An organizer ... does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.”
Alinsky’s radical dismisses all concerns of personal morality, conscience of the individual and personal salvation. This is a world “where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles.”
“One does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience ... doesn’t care enough for people to be corrupted for them.”
So, does Alinsky admit to the existence of a good? Yes. It’s whatever the Have-Notes want to get.
“We live in a world where ‘good’ is a value dependent on whether we want it. ... The Haves want to keep; the Have-Nots want to get.”
Does the radical leader admit the existence of any form of objective good or truth? Yes. He assumes his cause to be perfect — even if he knows his assumption to be a lie. “A leader,” he said, “must assume that his cause is 100 percent positive and that the opposition 100 percent negative.”
But if the radical’s ends are achievable and worth the cost, does Alinsky give us any examples of what he means by workable means.
Yes: “Pick the target; freeze, personalize it, and polarize it.”
So is personal destruction or character assassination a permissible means so long as it is workable?
Here’s what Alinsky says to that point: “Many liberals, during our attack on the then-school superintendent, were pointing out that after all he wasn’t a 100 percent devil, he was a regular churchgoer, he was a good family man, and he was generous in his contributions to charity. Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband’? This becomes political idiocy.”
But if character assassination fails, if the target isn’t destroyed, can the next obvious step be taken? If the end in revolution to seize power for the Have-Nots, if morality and conscience place no limits on the choice of the means, and if murder is workable, what objection can their be to using murder as the means?
In 1925, eight years before he became the German chancellor, Adolf Hitler published Mein Kampf and set out his future plans for Germany.
Most people in the West didn’t read it. Many of those who did read it, refused to believe Hitler really meant what he said.
Do your really want to live in Alinsky’s America?
An election’s coming.
Posted: QCOline.com October 18, 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment