David Horowitz On Saul Alinsky
NewsReal tells who the day’s newsmakers on the political Left really are – exposing their track-records, their worldviews, their key affiliations, and their agendas.
Sunday, Horowitz wrote a post titled, Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me. Glenn Beck is on vacation this week, but David Horowitz has been invited to be on his show on August 24th to discuss Saul Alinsky. As he reviews and re-reads Alinsky in preparation for the interview, Horowitz has decided to do a series of blog posts on Alinsky. This series should provide invaluable insight and understanding.
The first post deals solely with the dedication of Rules for Radicals.
“Lest we forget, an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical:” (Pause there for second. Now continue): “from all our legends, mythology, and history(and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
So Alinsky begins by telling readers what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer. This is something that in my experience conservatives have a very hard time understanding….They assume that radicals can’t really want to destroy a society that is democratic and liberal and has brought wealth and prosperity to so many. Oh yes they can….
Until conservatives begin to understand exactly what drives radicals and how dishonest they are — dishonest in the their core — it is going to be very hard to defend the system that is under attack. For radicals the noble end — creating a new heaven on earth — justifies any means. And if one actually believed it was possible to create heaven on earth, would he not willingly destroy any system hitherto created by human beings?
Having gone to college during a time when radicals wreaked havoc and destruction nation-wide, I am not at all skeptical of his assertions, but emphatically agree with his words. This is precisely what so many on the right and even those who would not consider themselves conservatives, have failed to grasp. They are under the illusion that the Left has different ideas about which policies will work in this country, but they still do not think the Left would be so foolish as to burn the village down to accomplish their goals. They don’t realize that burning the village down is the goal.
I highly recommend his post in its entirety. Horowitz incisively enlarges on the comparison of Satan to radicals. I look forward to the rest of the series.
UPDATE: Part II is now up: Hell on Earth.
As Alinsky himself puts it they are seeking to answer the question “Why am I here?” — a question which traditional religions attempt to answer but whose answers radicals scorn. Modern radicalism is a secular religion and its hunger for meaning, and hope and change cannot be satisfied by anything less than grandiose, totalizing schemes to transform the world. To bring up their failures, the enormities they are guilty of, the crimes committed in the name of their religion is to strike a blow at hope itself, which is why they cannot and will not hear it.
One kind of hell or another is what radicalism — progressivism — has in fact achieved since the beginning of the modern age when it conducted the first genocide during the French Revolution.
UPDATE: As Horowitz continues the series, I will update to link to his posts and quote excerpts. Note the theme of destruction of opponents.
Conservatives think of war as a metaphor when applied to politics. For radicals the war is real. That is why partisans of the left set out to destroy their opponents, not just refute their arguments. It is also why they never speak the truth. Deception for them is a military tactic in a war that is designed to elminate their opponents….
Alinsky’s book could be called Machiavellian Rules for Radicals, because it is all about deception, about keeping others in the dark about your intentions until it is too late. Alinsky even acknowledges Machiavelli as his model: “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be.” These are the famous lines that Michelle Obama made in her own Democratic Convention speech.
For Alinsky and his Machiavellian radicals politics is war. No matter what they say publicly or pretend to be, they are at war….
Because politics is a war for radicals they perceive opponents of their causes as enemies on a battlefield and set out to destroy them by demonizing and discrediting them….Glenn Beck…Sarah Palin is another conservative they consider extremely dangerous and therefore have set out to destroy, personally. The list is as long as there are conservative leaders….
…“In this book,” Alinsky explains, “we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people.” (p.3) Power has to be “seized” because the Haves will defend what they have (and thus deprive the Have-Nots of what they want). That is why radicals are organized for war.
This myth of the Haves and the Have-Nots is the radical version of the religious division of the world into Good and Evil. If all deprivations and all the social misery in the world are attributable to the greed and selfishness of one group — the Haves — radicals would have a righteous cause. But it happens to be false, and the radicals’ claim to be fighting in the cause of justice a lie. It is the precise lie with which Marx begins the Communist Manifesto….
Like other post-modern leftists he understood that there was something deeply flawed in the Communist outlook, but like them he never really examined what those flaws might be…The Alinsky radical has one principle — to take power from the so-called Haves and give it to the so-called Have-nots. What this amounts to, we shall see, is a political nihilism…
Alinsky’s biographer with the following anecdote about Alinsky’s advice to students wishing to protest the appearance on their campus of the first George Bush, before he became president because he was America’s representative to the UN during the Vietnam war…
“He told them…to go hear the speech dressed up as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards, reading ‘The K.K.K. supports Bush.’ And that is what the students did with very successful, attention-getting results.” (Let Them Call Me Rebel, pp. xv-xvi)
This anecdote tells you everything you really need to know about this mentor to Hillary Clinton and the Obamas, and the ACORN radicals….Because your purpose is to erase him and the system he is alleged to represent. Therefore pick the symbol of the greatest evil Americans — a small minority of Americans — were ever associated with, and use it to obliterate everything good they ever did in the service of your cause, which is to destroy the system which created them….every means is justified, as we shall. see. (To be continued…)
Part VI continued: Means and Ends Two: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me
David Horowitz continues with his analysis of Alinsky’s rationale of the means and ends, placing it within historical and moral context. This is a brief excerpt, please take the time to read his post in its entirety:
For anti-capitalist radicals — as indeed for zealots generally — the ends justify the means. It has ever been so — for the Jacobins, the Communists, the fascists and now the post-modern Alinsky/Obama left. And that is because of the very nature of those ends as radicals conceive them. A world without poverty, war, racism, or “sexism” is so noble, so perfect in contrast to everything that has preceded it — that it would be criminal not to deceive, lie, and even murder in order to advance or protect the cause. As Nietzsche once observed: “Idealism kills.”…
Rules for Radicals is about tactics in a war where the enemy is the “Haves” who are defending the status quo and all its manifold evils. It is a war that pits noble, planet-saving radicals against the entire social, moral and legal order. The radical goal is saving mankind, and the arguments of his critics are naturally that his means are unpatriotic, subversive, deceptive, violent, illegal and immoral.
Consequently, to brace his radical disciples against their opposition and supply them with self-justifying rationales, Alinsky devotes an entire chapter to the problem of “Means and Ends” — of how a radical can justify breaking the moral order in order to achieve radical ends (pp. 24 et seq). In his handling, there are 11 rules for radicals to explain how radical ends justify radical means. The chapter is explicitly an effort to answer those liberals who refuse to join the radical cause saying “I agree with your ends but not your means.”
Alinsky begins the chapter by telling us that the very question “does the end justify the means” as stated is “meaningless.” The real question is “does this particular end justify this particular means?”
The whole discourse about means and ends that follows, was made forty years earlier in 1938 in a famous (and far more intelligent) pamphlet by the Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky….
Part VI (continued 2): The Nazi Option: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me
If conservatives defend the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, and oppose racial preferences, why not compare them to slave owners and call them “racists?” If they oppose disloyal, dishonest and violent radicals, it might be helpful to call them Nazis. If liberals or even other leftists who share your progressive goals, nonetheless don’t like your methods, how about referring to them as “objectively” fascist?
This was in fact the exact term Stalin used to denounce the Marxist critics of his policies during the Thirties before he put them in front of firing squads. Alinsky’s logic and strategy are the same.
H/T: NewsReal Blog