ad banner for FDA Blunder and Coverup Kills Millions
Advertising Email FAQ Home RSS Search Speaking Townhall YouTube
Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity.
« | Main | »
May 03, 2010
John Hawkins The Best Quotes From Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals.”
  (Read WP posts from John Hawkins) | (Read MT posts from John Hawkins) | rss

Ironically, one of the hottest new books for conservatives is far left-winger Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which was written way back in 1971.

After reading the book, my personal opinion is that Alinsky was a brilliant yet cynical, habitually dishonest, utterly amoral human being with a deep understanding of large swathes of human nature. Was he a good guy? No, not at all. But, is there a lot conservatives can learn from his tactics? Absolutely. Some of it we can apply and some of it we can see how the Left has applied it against us. With that in mind, here are the quotes that jumped out at me in Alinsky's tome:

This failure of many of our younger activists to understand the art of communication has been disastrous. Even the most elementary grasp of the fundamental idea that one communicates within the experience of his audience -- and gives full respect to the other's values -- would have ruled out attacks on the American flag. -- P. xviii
As an organizer I start where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be -- it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. -- P. xix
"Power comes out of the barrel of a gun!" is an absurd ralling cry when the other side has all the guns. -- xxi
A reformation means that masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don't know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless. They won't act for change, but won't strongly oppose those who do. The time is then ripe for revolution. -- xxii
But the answer I gave the young radicals seemed to me the only realistic one: "Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing -- but this only swings  people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates." -- xxiii
The preferred world can be seen any evening on television in the succession of programs where the good always wins -- that is, until the late evening newscast, when suddenly we are plunged into the world as it is. Political realists see the world as it is: an arena of power politics moved primarily by perceived immediate self-interests, where morality is rhetorical rationale for expedient action and self-interest. Two examples would be the priest who wants to be a bishop and bootlicks and politicks his way up, justifying it with the rationale, "After I get to be bishop I'll use my office for Christian reformation," or the businessman who reasons, "First I'll make my million and after that I'll go for the real things in life," Unfortunately one changes in many ways on the road to the bishopric or the first million, and then one says, "I'll wait until I'm a cardinal and then I can be more effective," or "I can do a lot more after I get two million" -- and so it goes. In this world laws are written for the lofty aim of "the common good" and then acted out in life on the basis of the common greed. -- P.12-13
It is not a world of peace and beauty and dispassionate rationality, but as Henry James once wrote, "Life is, in fact, a battle. Evil is insolent and strong; beauty enchanting, but rare; goodness very apt to be weak; folly very apt to be defiant; wickedness to carry the day; imbeciles to be in great places, people of sense in small, and mankind generally unhappy. But the world as it stands is no narrow illusion, no phantasm, no evil dream of the night; we wake up to it again forever and ever; and we can neither forget it nor deny it nor dispence with it." Henry James' statement is an affirmation of that of Job: "The life of man upon earth is a warfare..." -- P.14
The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means. It is this species of man who so vehemently and militantly participated in that clasically idealistic debate at the old League of Nations on the ethical differences between defensive and offensive weapons. Their fears of action drive them to refuge in an ethics so divorced for the politics of life that it can apply only to angels, not men. -- P.26
One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue. -- P.26
...The secretary inquired how Churchill, the leading British anti-communist, could reconcile himself to being on the same side as the Soviets. Would Churchill find it embarassing and difficult to ask his government to support the communists? Churchill's reply was clear and unequivocal: "Not at all. I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." -- P.29
The fifth rules of the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa. To the man of action the first criterion in determining which means to employ is to assess what means are available. Reviewing and selecting available means is done on a straight utilitarian basis -- will it work? Moral questions may enter when one chooses among equally effective alternate means. -- P.32
The seventh rule of ethics and means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success and failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father. P.34
The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical. -- P.35
The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. ...the essence of Lenin's speeches during this period was "They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet." And it was. -- P.36-37
Eight months after securing independence (from the British), the Indian National Congress outlawed passive resistance and made it a crime. It was one thing for them to use the means of passive resistance against the previous Haves, but now in power they were going to ensure that this means would not be used against them. -- P.43
All effective actions require the passport of morality. -- P.44
But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you're 30 per cent ahead. -- P.59
The organizer becomes a carrier for the contagion of curiousity, for a people asking "why" are beginning to rebel. -- P.72
To realistically appraise and anticipate the probably reactions of the enemy, he must be able to identify with them, too, in his imagination and forsee their reactions to his actions. -- P.74
With very rare exceptions, the right things are done for the wrong reasons. It is futile to demand that men do the right thing for the right reason -- this is a fight with a windmill. -- P.76
The moment one gets into the area of $25 million and above, let alone a billion, the listener is completely out of touch, no longer really interested because the figures have gone above his experience and almost are meaningless. Millions of Americans do not know how many million dollars make up a billion. -- P.96
If the organizer begins with an affirmation of love for people, he promptly turns everyone off. If, on the other hand, he begins with a denunciation of exploiting employers, slum landlords, police shakedowns, gouging merchants, he is inside their experience and they accept him. -- P.98
The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a "dangerous enemy." -- P.100
The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. -- P.116-117
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people.

...The third rule is: Whereever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

...the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

...the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

...the sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

...the seventh rule  is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

...the eighth rule: Keep the pressure on.

...the ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than  the thing itself.

The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

...The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

...The twelth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

...The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. -- P.126-129
One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other. A leader may struggle toward a decision and weigh the merits and demerits of a situation which is 52 per cent positive and 48 per cent negative, but once the decision is reached he must assume that his cause is 100 per cent positive and the opposition 100 per cent negative. He can't toss forever in limbo, and avoid decision. He can't weigh arguments or reflect endlessly -- he must decide and act. -- P.134
It should be remembered that you can threaten the enemy and get away with it. You can insult and annoy him, but the one thing that  is  unforgivable and that is certain to get him to react is to laugh at him. This causes irrational anger. -- P.134-135
I have on occasion remarked that I felt confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday. -- P.150
For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsbility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each others), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organizations, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their "book" of rules and regulations. This is what that great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote to the Corinthians: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth." -- P.152
The difference between fact and history was brought home when I was a visiting professor at a certain Eastern university. Two candidates there were taking their written examinations for the doctorate in community organization and criminology. I persuaded the president of this college to get me a copy of this examination and when I answered the questions the departmental head graded my paper, knowing only that I was an anonymous friend of the president. Three of the questions were on the philosophy of Saul Alinksy. I answered two of them incorrectly. I did not know what my philosophy or motivations were; but they did! -- P.168
Many of the lower middle class are members of labor unions, churches, bowling clubs, fraternal, service, and nationality organizations. They are organizations and people that must be worked with as one would work with any other part of our populations -- with respect, understanding, and sympathy. To reject them is to lose them by default. They will not shrivel and disappear. You can't switch channels and get rid of them. This is what you have been doing in your radicalized dream world but they are here and will be. -- P.189
Facebook MySpace Twitter del.icio.us Digg Newsvine Propeller Reddit Stumbleupon Technorati
    Share this article!
I like! I don't like. Score: 14
Return to Top  John Hawkins | 8:20 am | Permalink Comments (View Comments)   Email this!  
Note: Comments and Trackbacks for this entry were closed as of May 10, 2010
  • Principlex
    Further, the desparation of using the tactics of Alinsky follows from the frustration caused by the inability to challenge the basic premise of the Left - namely that the group overrules the individual. By wide margin, the moral principle that governs this is the utilitarian principle: The greater good is happiness for the greatest number. This allows for the sacrifice of the happiness of all those who don't agree or want that form of happiness. And that is what we see all the time. The only problem is that the govt. gun forces all of those "unhappy" people to pay for those that won and are in power. This initiation of force on the part of the govt is the weapon of sacrifice.

    With the health care legislation, we now see that it isn't even "happiness for the greatest number," since most of the country was against the passage of that bill. We now see that it is "happiness for the miniscule number who won" - at the expense of all those who do not have the power of the govt gun.

    In a system of individual rights, all help for the needy and those unable to pursue their values has to come from the individuals who hold the value(s) of supporting the needy. If it is true that this is something people think they ought to do, they will do it. If not, they won't. Are we unwilling to face this reality?
  • Principlex
    The entire confusion within the right is that it thinks it should fight for the common good. If one intends to secure freedom, he must secure individual rights. And to do that he must give up the common good as an argument, a reason for anything.

    Until we get this straight, conservatives will continue to be liberal lite. The liberals will always be safe with us because we are unable to challenge the bedrock premise of their position - that the group overrules the individual.

    I've remarked listening to Fox News that Obama is quite safe insofar as Fox is concerned. Hannity, O'Reilly, Cavuto, Beck and others simply are unable to challenge the Left at its root. And we either get this clear or we will lose our country. The logic of the group over the individual will necessitate some form of socialist state with all the horror stories that implies.

  • Dan
    Like it or not -- and I don't -- Alinsky was a Machiavelli for the 20th and, apparently, the 21st centuries. There's plenty to be learned, and applied, from his book.
  • rodomontade
    The quote from p. 150 is the Goldman Sachs story in a sentance.
  • Right Brain
    I heard Mr. Alinsky speak on two occasions, and these quotes fit perfectly with my impression of him at the time: he was against the counter-culture which went by the name of hippy and others. He was for working within the system and accomplishing social equality--his version of it at least--through strengthening the labor unions. He was not radical at all for his times, more like a grandfather trying to get the millions of nineteen yo's to dress and behave respectfully. His comments about going psycho and becoming a bomber were directed at the weatherman factions. His comments about the other side having all the guns was directed at the Black Panthers.

    He was not radical at all, he believed in working within the democratic system, as we do. By the end of his life most of what he had attempted had failed, he was largely forgotten by the end of the seventies, odd that he is having a resurgence now; especially since no one believes in working outside the system anymore.
  • Jorge
    "Know yourself, know your enemy and in a thousand battles you will not be defeated"

    -Sun Zu We as conservatives do not need to follow Alinskys rules, but need to understand what the Organizer and Chief is up too if we are serious about defeating him.
  • Lorenzo
    Alinsky is the new Karl Marx just as Karl Marx was the new Satan and so it goes in McCarthyland.
  • Nobody likes a spammer. Or a knucklehead, really but that's your own problem.
  • Lorenzo
    Alinsky is the new Karl Marx just as Karl Marx was the new Satan and so it goes in McCarthyland.
  • Lorenzo
    Alinsky is the new Karl Marx just as Karl Marx was the new Satan and so it goes in McCarthyland.
  • Lorenzo
    Alinsky is the new Karl Marx and Karl Marx was the new Satan and so it goes in McCarthyland.
  • "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Gee how I wish the Republicans were reading this! The new Obamacare has changes to the IRS 1099-MISC reporting but the government only requires reporting of us, never them. They redistribute income constantly, at all levels of government, but only I have to report moving $600 to a working man. They should be reporting all their income redistribution with a 1099-GOV!
  • punkindrublic
    Screw BHO. This "dude" is political toast; he and the DNC just haven't the foresight to envision the coming firestorm. May they rest in hell...or at lesast wander in the desert for decades...many deacades.
  • darrencardinal
    I reject all of this nuance.

    The answer is to subject the liberal to forced labor re-education.
    Especially David Frum and Keith Olberrmann.
  • mondoF
    You've done a public service by distilling these quotes from the book.

    Thanks!
  • rosignol
    It is surprising how many of those quotes demonstrate considerable insight into how people think. Whatever else Alinsky may have been, he understood how to communicate with people who did not necessarily agree with him.

    We need to get up to speed on this.
  • setnaffa
    Rather than dabble in filth, I prefer to stick with the Bible. The use of the Enemy's weapons in real life is as counter-productive as the use of Sauron's Ring in Tolkein's epic trilogy...
  • I've been trying to point this out for a while now: what happens if someone applies these kind of tactics in a relationship? Lets say you treat your spouse or your sibling this way, a close friend or a person at work? What if you did this kind of thing to get your way with people close to you, how well would that work out?

    Would it succeed? Probably - but what would it do to the relationship? What kind of animosity, rage, and frustration would it build? Psychologists would call that grossly disfunctional and a sick relationship.

    Why are things so heated and angry, why is truth, logic, and reason missing from our political debate? This is why. And like Pres says: we should never, ever pick up those tactics. Even if they weren't reprehensible, they won't work for conservatives because they abandon everything we stand for and believe in.
  • Becky
    If one is in an abusive relationship, it will not stop the abuse by simply appealing to the better nature of the abuser. We need to get the abusers our of the House (and Senate).
  • President Friedman
    I'm becoming more conerned every day about conservatives acting like liberals in order to win arguments or score points in the media. I think a lot of this kind of manipulative stuff ultimately hurts the cause (case in point: Republicans didn't win any independant support by spending the entire weekend on television calling the Gulf oil spill "Obama's Katrina"). I know for sure it gives some ethical, moral, thoughtful independants pause about joining up with a movement that is becoming just as cynical and myopic as the people they are trying to replace.

    Liberty and self-determination are concepts that lend themselves to incredibly powerful prose and rhetoric, and for good reason: because they are incredibly powerful concepts. Consevatives will win more support by appealing to those concepts than by trying to use Alinky's Jedi Mind Tricks on people who are smart enough to know better.
  • The point I took from this is, as Sun Tzu said, "know thy enemy," not necessarily to use the author's unethical ramblings as strategy or tactics.

    For example, the use of the Churchill quote above is very telling.

    "Not at all. I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."


    To the Left, Conservatives are the enemy. Oh sure, they may dislike Islamic fundamentalists and such, but they don't see them as the primary enemy. It is why they are so willing to ally themselves with the most treacherous of entities in order to destroy Conservatism. It explains why they were so willing to be, and support, human shields for Saddam's regime. Why they were in the streets a week after 9-11 protesting a war in Afghanistan that hadn't even begun yet. Why they're willing to bankrupt the United States over entitlement programs that make things worse, not better.

    With the Left, it's not about logic, it's about winning, and nothing else. If we don't begin to understand this, our nation is lost.
  • I agree with you Prez, that a return to thoughtful, principled and civilised political discourse is long overdue, and that there is equal onus on conservatives as there is on moderates, progressives, liberals, centrists, libertarians, etc to contribute appropriately to that end. Not that I see that happening anytime soon. One has only to read the comments here and at other politically-oriented sites around the interwebz to understand that.

    What I dispute in your comment is that you've made the same leap of logic as many others do - you've equated membership in the GOP with conservatism, which I think is erroneous.

    It is my strong suspicion that almost anyone who joins up with any political movement sooner or later discovers that it's led by and intends to serve, how did you phrase it, cynical and myopic people. Sorry that I can't be more idealistic inre politics and political movements, but 40+ years of watching the games and the players has left me, well, let's just say that I only trust any politician as far as I can throw him or her. And as I've aged, that distance has shrunk considerably!

    Bottom line for me is that if any independent is going to be put off by cynical and myopic politics, they'll be equally put off by both major political parties and virtually all political identity groups. I keep reading articles which seem to indicate that we're seeing some evidence of that right now amongst the younger voters who turned out to support Mr. Obama. The cynical realities of politics have turned a lot of those naive political newbies off. Many of the ones not turned off by it have adopted the "old ways" of their predecessors, thus insuring that the 'screech level' of our national political discourse will remain deafeningly high for the foreseeable future.

    But you're right in expressing that it's no better for all of us when Republicans and/or conservatives employ the same ethically questionable tactics as their opponents often use.
  • President Friedman
    Martin, I agree that it is generally wrongheaded to conflate 'Republican' with 'conservative', but when we are talking about effecting electoral outcomes, I don't really know how else to address it. At this point, there still isn't a better vehicle for moving towards a more conservative government than the GOP. So when it comes to talking about trying to win voters and elections, I think you almost have to treat the GOP as the "conservative" option, even though it leaves a lot to be desired. And as such, the party needs to be more principaled not only in its ideological commitment, but in its rhetorical engagement. If we can't trust them to make honest arguments, then we can't trust them to govern honestly.
  • Well, you won't find me arguing against political parties/politicians being more principled, that's for sure. I just rankle at the reflexive Republican/conservative linkage, primarily because I'm a lifelong conservative, but I stopped identifying with the Republican Party over 20 years ago and I get tired of correcting people's mistaken attributions.

    But as to your ending sentence, I can only say that in my lowly estimation, we jumped that shark a long, long, long time ago, and have been CTD at an ever-increasing rate ever since. I don't think we can trust most politicians and their party apparatuses to either make honest arguments or govern honestly. Sorry to be so derisive of our political system, but we've let too many monied interests co-habit with our political class for far too long, and just as the old adage says about lying down with dogs, we've all gotten up with fleas, fleas which are sucking the lifeblood out of us as we speak.

    And I say that with equal disregard for both of the major parties, not just the Republicans.
  • Becky
    Martin, I understand your frustration with both parties and politicians, but I'm not sure I understand exactly who it is you want to be in charge. Is that not what Alinsky was writing about? You have to except the world as it is and change it. Somebody has to organize and lead and be in charge and none of them will be perfect. You have to get behind somebody if you want to make change for good or ill.
  • Becky
    ooops, I meant accept the world. haha.
blog comments powered by Disqus

ad banner for FDA Blunder and Coverup Kills Millions! (Bottom)
© Copyright 2001-2010 John Hawkins
eXTReMe Tracker