Who wants to live in Alinsky's America?

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

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

If Everyone Lies, Why Negotiate Anything?

 “Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception. ... The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.-- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince


For the last six years, our president and his administration have operated on the principle of that the ends justify the means. The "end" is always said to be the welfare of the American people. The "means" have included making promises with no intent to keep them, or knowing they will be broken when convenient. For just one example, watch Professor Jonathan Gruber: youtube.com/watch?v=Adrdmmh7bMo

But what happens in the area of foreign negotiations when enemies such as Russia, Iran or the Islamic State employ the same tactic? What if during the course of negotiations, they make promises with no intent to keep them, or with intent to renege as soon as it suits their convenience? What if the Russians lie to us about what the are doing in Ukraine? What if the Iranians lie to us about their uranium enrichment sites?

Both Russia and Iran have "ends" in mind. If the ends justify the means in Washington, why not in Moscow or Teheran? And if your opponent signs an agreement with no intent to observe it, or with intent to disregard it when convenient, what is the value of the written and signed agreement?
You can say, "How can you be sure they will lie or make promises they don't intent to keep?" In truth, I can't be sure. But deceit for them is small change compared to the other more lethal acts they have undertaken to achieve their ends.

Putin, for example, shamelessly invaded and occupies portions of Georgia, seizes Crimea, and makes war on the Ukraine, using Russian arms, Russian special forces and Ukrainian proxies -- all in flagrant violation of International Law.

Iran, while claiming peaceful intentions, sends arms to Hezzbollah, Hamas and the Houthi in Yemen, after supplying IEDs that killed and maimed American troops for more than a decade, while moving on a daily basis to acquire ICBMs and a nuclear bomb.

If I am willing to kill you to achieve my end, will I scruple at intentionally deceiving you to achieve that same end at a lower cost?

In his book, "Rules for Radicals," Saul Alinsky devotes his second chapter to a discussion of means and ends.

“The second rule of the ethics of 'means and ends' is that the judgment of  the ethics of 'means' is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. If you actively opposed the Nazi occupation and joined the underground Resistance, then you adopted the means of assassination, terror, property destruction, the bombing of tunnels and trains, kidnapping, and the willingness to sacrifice innocent hostages to the end of defeating the Nazis. Those who opposed the Nazi conquerors regarded the Resistance as a secret army of selfless, patriotic idealists, courageous beyond expectation and willing to sacrifice their lives to their moral convictions.To the occupation authorities, however, these people were lawless terrorists, murderers, saboteurs, assassins, who believed that the end justified the means, and were utterly unethical according to the mystical rules of war. ... However, in such conflict, neither protagonist is concerned with any value except victory. It is life or death.

“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."

Of course Alinsky was not the first to argue the ends justify the means. Around 1513, Machiavelli wrote "The Prince"  in which states:

"Everyone admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless … those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and ... in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word.

"If men were entirely good, this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them. Nor will there ever be wanting to a prince legitimate reasons to excuse this non-observance.

"It is necessary [for the prince] to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.

"Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them ...  -- to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright ...
"A prince ... cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed,  being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to fidelity,  friendship, humanity, and religion.”

So, is it possible to negotiate with the likes of Putin and Iran's Ali Khamenei? Yes. Neville Chamberlain was even able to get Adolf Hitler to put his signature to a  written agreement? Hitler then tore up the agreement when convenient.

Without foolproof verification only a blithering idiot would believe Khamenei and the Iranian regime after they've promised the annihilation of Israel and developed ICBMs -- while claiming their centrifuges are only for "peaceful purposes.

Posted Online:  May 8, 2015 at 11:10 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea