Saul Alinsky

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
Saul Alinsky.jpg

If you need a far, far left fanatic, then you better call Saul. He is the epitome of post-modern Marxism: undermining everything that is established good, supporting subverting the establishment, promoting lies for a "good cause" (defined as anything Saul agrees with). To quote from Sixteen Candles, Saul is kinda like the king of dipshits (I judge him partly by his followers). He deserves credit for being their leader, but they say you can judge a man by the company he keeps, and that's how I judge both Saul and his followers. He advocated for many things, like Climate Scarism, but only because it furthered his agenda of destabilizing our government and created an excuse for taking over people's lives.

Sum of the parts

Saul can be judged by his causes, and vice versa.

On the poor side of logic:

  • He was an organized labor fan
  • He opposed preventing South Asia falling to the communists (Vietnam)
  • He was a fan of most liberal causes, at any cost

On the right side of it:

  • He supported civil rights for blacks
  • He considered government generally inept if not corrupt
  • He mocked the "War on Poverty," in 1964 as destined to fail and called it "a prize piece of political pornography

You can see that he was actually more complex than some give him credit. He was viewed by many as a communist, even though he had repeatedly condemned communism. The truth is he was an individualist in that he thought you should empower the mob. But since you couldn't trust the unwashed masses, you should lie to them to get them to do what you wanted (he was an elitist). Kind of an insincere collectivist -- you couldn't trust the collective, you could only count on individuals to manipulate the gullible.

Saul and Lucifer

This was borrowed (paraphrased) from Dinesh D'Souza's book/movie Hillary's America (2016), but it's quite applicable to understanding Saul. [1]

Whether you believe in Lucifer or not (I'm an atheist myself), Lucifer was who Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to (Rules for Radicals). Why? Because the parable of Satan in the Bible as the first radical, was the model that Saul taught his followers: community organizers like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and their allies were his flock.

Satan and Saul taught the steps to win (variants of this are in both RfR and the Bible):

  1. Polarization: divide and conquer make people (angels) choose a side between black and white. Create a division and exploit it.
  2. Demonization: list all the flaws of the establishment in exaggerated form, get everyone else to resent the establishment, then position himself as part of the counter-culture (the good side fighting for the little guys). Thus turn hope and change into action, without paying too much attention to what they were changing from or to.
  3. Organization: draw on envy as motivation, and build coalitions amongst the rebels against their common enemy. There's time to betray them once you've thwarted your common enemy, but be a community organizer and get them on your side. Hate is a powerful too and motivator: so if they start to fracture on how they differ from each other, refocus them on their bigger hate of the other side.
  4. Deception (covert guile): cunning, camouflage, circumspect approaches. Convince them you're on their side (even if you are not). Get them to believe YOU'RE the moderate (when you're the radical). Dress like them, pretend to be them. Deny everything (especially if it's truth). Throw out enough lies than the other side can keep up with debunking them.

Because Satan already denied the morality of the other side, he's not bound by their rules or to play fair, tell the truth. The ends justifies the means, And since he 100% believed in his ends, then any means were also justified.

It's all divide and conquer, you can trust me because I wouldn't lie to you (while lying to you), you can never trust them (when they're telling the truth). Scapegoating (blame everything on "them") -- and then use "the ends justifies the means" (everything THEY do, makes me use these corrupt or amoral means, because that's how to win). Voila. Just like Saul, Satan and Obama's continuous campaigning.

Saul was green with envy

One thing is for certain, Saul loved the watermelon greens, and the greens loved Saul. They were both fanatics, with a mutual respect for each others intolerance towards those that disagreed with them. But they both had Marxist inclinations (even if they weren't all purely Marxist). Saul would never belong to any club that would have him. Yet, you could see his political alignments by where he spent his time, and who spent time on him. And the environmental movement spent a lot of time on him and his techniques. You can see it in their adherence to his rules for radicals:

The Rules

  1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
  2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
  3. "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."
  4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
  5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
  6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
  7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
  8. "Keep the pressure on."
  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."

Not everything bad about Saul is true


There's a meme that went around during the Obama administration, that was general Marxist ideas, and some attached Saul's name to it, and passed it off as his, just because it sounded like all things that he and his acolytes supported. But it wasn't actually his: he and his followers knew that if their ideas were unpopular, you must never be honest and explain them in such open truthfulness. So the meme is fake, even if materially, it aligned quite well with most of his objectives.

Of course Snopes jumped in and defended him in ways that they never would for a right of center guy. Still, they were honest enough to elaborate on some of his other lists, which sound fundamentally the same in concept, just not quite as specific in implementation.


📚 References

More Links

Written 2014.07.04