Posted by: Debby Durkee | March 13, 2011

Obama: Alinsky’s bridge to socialism.

Debby's Web Finds
Obama: Alinsky’s bridge to socialism.

Sam Blumenthal over at the New American website has read Saul Alinsky, the radical who wrote the leftist bible, Rules for Radicals, and another book, Reveille for Radicals. We’ve heard a lot about Alinsky over the past few years as Obama has taken our government in a radical direction. One of the most familiar of Alinsky’s rules is number 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” which is just what’s been done to Sarah Palin. There are many more rules, and unless you’ve read Alinsky you might not truly understand what Obama and his minions are currently doing to our country. No one wants to look at it. No one wants to be thought of as crazy (that’s exactly what they’re hoping people will think) or to be called racist. We need to get over all of that political correctness if we are to get serious about bringing our country back from the brink. Blumenthal says Obama is what Alinsky refers to as a “stealth socialist.”

To Alinsky, the revolutionary organizer had to be a political relativist, with no fixed truth. He must be loose, resilient, fluid, and on the move in a society which is itself in a state of constant change. “To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma,” Alinsky explained, “he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations our society presents.”

In other words, the Community Organizer must be a pragmatist. Indeed, the sub-title on the cover of Rules for Radicals is: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, which more or less sums up Alinsky’s political philosophy. But whether Alinsky was a dogmatist or not, there is no escaping that what revolutionary radicals want is socialism or communism. Obama was well schooled in Marxist-Leninist socialism before he became a Community Organizer, so while he may be operating as a pragmatist, he must know that what he and his fellow radicals ultimately want is socialism. Otherwise, what is the purpose of radical revolution?

Becoming a stealth socialist meant becoming a professional liar, a deceiver, a fraud. Alinsky justified such deception by analyzing the question of means and ends. He wrote: “The man of action views the question of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms…. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”

Alinsky endorsed lying as a legitimate means to a socialist end.

One of Obama’s advisors during his 2008 election campaign was Peter Dreier, chairman of the Urban and Environmental Policy Department at Obama’s old alma-mater, Occidental College. In 1982, he co-chaired the Democratic Socialists of America Urban and Community Commission. He was a delegate to the Democratic Socialists of America conference in New York City in October 1983.

Stanley Kurtz, in Radical-in-Chief, credits Dreier with formulating the stealth plan to destroy capitalism. His plan is to gradually expand government spending until the country nears fiscal collapse. At that point, a public accustomed to entitlements will presumably turn on its capitalist masters when they propose cutbacks to restore fiscal balance.

Apparently Obama has followed Dreier’s plan to the letter, for he has virtually spent the federal government into near bankruptcy, expanding government debt by the trillions of dollars, thereby putting the dollar in peril as the world’s reserve currency, and he is resisting Republican attempts to legislate realistic cuts in government spending. The mobs in Wisconsin are the forerunners of the mobs that the stealth socialists hope will force Republicans to give up their attempts to balance the budget, which will make it easier for the radicals to persuade Americans to replace capitalism with a new socialist economy.

But it won’t work because the entire plan is built on lies and deception, and Americans expect their political leaders to be honest. Thus, the key to success for conservatives is to send people to Congress who have the backbone and determination to set things straight in Washington. Perhaps as many as 45 percent of the American people may be willing to live under a socialist system. But the other 55 percent are not. And that is sufficient to prevent the nation from abandoning the principles of government bequeathed us by the Founding Fathers.

Alinsky wrote: “Men don’t like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience; they need a bridge to cross from their own experience to a new way. A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives- — agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce, if not a passion for change, at least a passive affirmative, non-challenging climate.”

And that is what Obama attempted to do during his campaign for the presidency when he called for “change we can believe in” and was able to get the assent of millions of adorers who had no idea what he meant by change. He was Alinsky’s perfect bridge. Indeed, David Remnick, editor of the The New Yorker, titled his book on the life and rise of Barack Obama, The Bridge. In other words, Obama is the bridge to socialism, and you would not understand the title of Remnick’s book unless you had read Alinsky.

We must learn the methods of the radical in order to combat them. Think of it as knowing your enemy, because if you believe in the country as it was founded, then these people truly aren’t our friends. Please read it all here:

http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/sam-blumenfeld/6622-the-alinsky-effect-or-how-to-understand-barack-obama

Here’s a website that lists the 12 rules for radicals as defined by Saul Alinsky. The author of this blog post also helps to define what they are. His site is for public relations personnel whose companies are targeted by the left, but it applies to all, and it helps to see all in one place what our country is up against, and how they will never stop unless we stop them. This is from Craig Miyamoto.

Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. Here are the rules to be aware of:

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main
sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

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. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

Think of Sarah Palin quitting her position as governor of Alaska because she was having to fight constant, frivolous lawsuits at the taxpayers’ expense. She quit because they weren’t going to stop, and she did it for the state as well as for her family. Then, of course, the left berated her (and still does) because she quit. Sick. Like I said, this is a war, but only one side is playing for keeps. Palin knew what they were doing. That’s why she fights them hard on everything now. She knows.

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. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)   Snip –

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. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

Think of all of the new laws, the new regulations, the number of times you’ve been ticked off over the past couple of years as the left had absolute power in Washington, D.C. The Republicans have been scrambling to keep up, and they still don’t have enough power to completely stop them as Obama and company ignore judicial orders, ignore the law, and continue putting in place regulations that Congress never voted to put into law when they could have. This is what they are doing and will continue to do. Read all the rest of the rules so you are familiar with their tactics, here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6916928/Alinsky-Rules-for-Radicals

//

Bookmark and Share

About these ads

Responses

  1. Debby,

    I don’t understand how you can write an entire post about what the dems are doing then use and accept their talking points. Every other politician in history has resigned. The left used the word “quit” for a reason with Palin. It allowed them to personalize her action. You using and repeating their word choice to define what Gov Palin did only adds to their success. Gov Palin resigned her post for her own reasons. Reasons, which I and many others find worthy and good. She resigned like all other politicians that resigned for whatever reason they decided to resign. Some left to avoid scandal. Some like huntsman and Obama resigned to go to better gigs.

    The point is that in all cases but Gov Palin’s the word used was “resigned “ . Never in the history of politics was the word “quit” linked to the act of a politician resigning. Words mean things and the left chose the word “quit” for a reason. I enjoyed your post I just think maybe you don’t see how totally the rules for radicals have been deployed by the left since you are repeating their attacks by using the words they have chosen to use.

    • Good grief — I believe you’ve gone a little bit overboard here. I apologize for using the word “quit” — it basically means the same thing as resign, but that seems a very strange thing to take away from this post. Would that you would be just as passionate about the left instead of attacking me.

    • Oh, and I never paid attention to what word the left said, so your entire post was based on your offense. I actually admire Sarah Palin — so stop trying to make enemies out of her supporters.

      • Debby,

        I am not attacking you at all. Your post is about how the Dems use Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. I pointed out one of the Alinsky tricks they have been employed on Gov Palin that has been so successful most people simply accept it as fact. They personalized her resignation by defining it as something different than what everyone else does, which it wasn’t. Politicians resign all the time for numerous reasons. Gov Palin and only Gov Palin has quit. They personalized her action to target her and ridicule her, to keep the pressure on and make her defend her action as something outside the norm. (See Rules #5, #8 and #12 among others to understand this attack of the liberals) and I was pointing out the fact that your use of their terms in everyday communication means it has worked.

        You say the word “quit” and “resign” mean basically the same thing. But they have different connotations. They conjure different images to mind.

        Let me repeat I am not attacking you nor defending Gov Palin. I am attempting to explain how the Rules for Radicals work in a real world example. By the liberals managing and winning the message war against Gov Palin’s resignation. Once we allow them to define and personalize the debate we have already lost and the rest is simply wasting time.

        I really hope you don’t get offended and actually understand what I am attempting to explain. It is not an attack on you or your post. Nor is it a defense of Gov Palin.

        I enjoyed your post and thought it was well done. One of the biggest ways the liberals employ Rules for Radicals is by language and defining the terms of debate.

  2. And my point is that I didn’t use their term. I used mine, and you took offense. So, please don’t tell me the Left’s tactics are working with me or that I “repeated their attacks.” That’s my point. If you would have actually read what I wrote about Palin, you would have understood that I wasn’t influenced by their tactics. I understand why Palin did what she did and I explained it. You are too focused on Palin and “words”. I’m focused on saving the country. So please, tell someone who doesn’t understand what the left is doing instead of arguing with me. Enough.

  3. “words”.

    Are the left’s biggest weapons. If we want to save the country then we have to understand this point before all others. It is how the left frames the debate. It is how they put conservatives and moderates on the defensive from the moment the debate starts. Words are how the left employs Rule #5 to blistering sucess over and over again. It is how they they employ Rule #8 to keep the pressure on. It is how they employ Rule # 12 to pick a target and personalize it.

    They use words like “progressives”, “have nots”, “pro-choice”, “fetus”, “freedom fighter”, “homophope”

    Words mean things.

    The left picks and chooses their words carefully to conjure imagines and emotions they want the population to take away. We can not fight the left until we stop using their words as the basis of debate.

    • I don’t disagree with the thrust of your ideas, but I do disagree with the way you approached the discussion. I didn’t use their words. You decided I used their words. That’s the difference. Let’s agree that we all must be cognizant that the Left is a pox on the country and we’ll all do our parts to extricate from them in as many ways as we’re able.

  4. Thanks

  5. […] Alinsky’s Bridge to Socilism […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: