Tag Archives: Rules for Radicals



Today we add Commentary to the final chapter of Rules for Radical

If you have read the full review you have gained insights that few others have into an important part of the political world as it is played out in America today.  You will grasp the political element behind Republican ridicules of Obama and his teleprompter and Joe Biden’s antics.  It becomes clear why the Democrats came up with the slogan “Republican War on Women”.  You understand that compromise is difficult because it is a solution.  And solutions deprive one or both sides of an issue that could be used to their advantage as long as it remains unresolved.  Rules for Radicals is a simple book but a highly enlightening one when you see how the author’s teachings are manifested time and again in current events.

Synopsis of the chapter entitled The Way Ahead
The middle class is the largest group in America. The focus, now and in the future, must be on winning the middle class.

These “are a fearful people, who feel threatened on all sides:”. “Seeking some meaning in life, they turn to an extreme chauvinism and become defenders of the ‘American’ faith”. “They don’t know what, if anything, they can do. This is the job for today’s radical – to fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame to fight”.

Students who come to college from middle class backgrounds must be taught to reject their parent’s values and way of life as “materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt”. No one is better equipped to organize, agitate and convert the middle class than those who have escaped it.

How could this college professor possibly have developed such a dismally incorrect perception of the vast middle class? Psychological projection would account for it. According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a defense mechanism where a person “projects” their own unwanted motivations, desires, fears, feelings and opinions onto someone else – if most everyone else feels and acts with the same fears and emotions that I have then there can be nothing wrong with me.

Also note the lightly veiled contempt for American ideals expressed by adding cynical quotation marks around the words American faith. The author has no faith in this, his country. In fact, disdain for America is a theme that recurs again and again throughout the book. It should not be surprising to see the same attitude toward America coming from Barack and Michelle Obama because it was the Alinsky model of community organizing that Barack followed and briefly taught to ACORN activists in Chicago.

There many things very sad about this closing chapter. The author ends his work with the same hopeless view that he began it. The professor’s only vision for the way ahead is to the drag America’s youth down into the same hellhole he has created for himself. Presumably, then they would fight for…, fight for what? The author never says. I submit they would fight for those very things they so soundly rejected. But they would fight the opportunity to take them, not for the opportunity to earn them.


Continuing with the chapter by chapter series on Rules for Radicals, today we add Comments about the chapter called The Genesis of Tactic Proxy.

Synopsis of the chapter entitled The Genesis of Tactic Proxy
“America’s corporations are a spiritual slum, and their arrogance is the major threat to our future as a free society.”

The title of this chapter is derived from the idea of using corporate shareholder proxies to achieve your own goals.  Corporate stockholders have certain rights as to how the corporation conducts its affairs.  These rights are exercised by voting and the voting document is called a proxy. The tactic involves persuading colleges, foundations and churches to vote their proxies in solidarity according to the organizer’s plan of attack.

Alinsky stumbled upon this idea when talking to three business administration college students who were opposed to the Vietnam war, but “recoiled from such actions as carrying the Viet Cong flag or burning their draft cards.  However, they did believe in using proxies.”

The genesis of the proxy tactic is an example of why an organizer should hang loose. When a door opens unexpectedly, go through it. Be not concerned that it takes you off the path you had planned. Do not fall into the trap set by “our alleged educational system” that teaches “order, logic, rational thought, direction and purpose”. These ideas are invalid because they are too rigid. The organizer must be ready to go where the flow leads him.

The author’s statement at the top of this awkwardly named chapter only needs minor editing to be correct.  “America’s corporations Democratic leaders are a spiritual slum, and their Obama’s arrogance is the major threat to our future as a free society.”

Saul Alinsky must have been quite proud of himself when he stumbled on this idea.  Here he was, using capitalist corporate procedures to promote a Marxist cause.  He didn’t realize it was never destined to work.  Not many corporate shareholders are going to join in solidarity with any radical causes, let alone socialist ones.


Continuing with the chapter by chapter series on Rules for Radicals, today we add Comments about the chapter called Tactics.

Synopsis of the chapter entitled Tactics
The tag line following the heading of this chapter is a quote from the great warrior Hannibal,

“We will find a way, or make one.”

The reason for having a defined set of tactics is to provide a specific set of rules that teach “how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves”, i.e. how to organize the lower classes in order to take power away from the middle and upper classes.  The message from Hannibal is not to constrain yourself to working within societal norms.  You need to be able and willing to do whatever it takes to do to get the job done.

These are the thirteen rules of Tactics that need to be observed in the process of wresting power from the establishment.  Each tactic is presented here word for word as it appears in the book.

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

2. Never go outside the experience of your people.

3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.

4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

5. Ridicule is man’s most important weapon.

6. A good tactic is one that 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 on 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.

The final rule is by far the most important.  The author devotes more pages to an understanding of this rule than to all of the first twelve rules combined.  This, of course, is the tactic of personal destruction.  Ridicule and personal destruction are two of the most effective tools known for deflating an enemy’s power and they must be utilized to the fullest extent possible.

By opening with the Hannibal quote, the professor shows his determination to replace traditional Judeo-Christian standards of ethical behavior with a more convenient concept of right and wrong in the minds of his students.  If the use of demagoguery, lying and deceit facilitate the creation of a better world then these methods are more than just acceptable practice, it is the moral duty of a leader to employ them.  Judeo-Christian principles have no place in Alinsky’s model of political activism.

The key tactics on the list are numbers 13, 5 and 4, in that order.

Number 13 should be familiar to everyone; it’s the tactic of personal destruction.  It starts with “Pick the target”; the natural choice is the adversary who represents the greatest current threat, take Sarah Palin as an example.  “Freeze it”, be relentless, keep the target always on the defensive.  Stop them from moving forward by a constant need for responding to your attacks.  The DNC sent a SWAT team of 30 high powered lawyers and Democratic operatives accompanied by members of the liberal MSM to Alaska at the height of her popularity.  “Personalize it”, spread a story like the rumor that Palin’s daughter got pregnant while still in high school and her mother lied to cover up for her by claiming the baby was her own.  “Polarize it”, surround the targeted person with controversy to maintain the public interest and keep the issue alive.

The practice of personal destruction is deplorable and in many cases vicious.  Unfortunately it is also effective.  Only you can change that.  The more the public recognizes demonizing for what it is and responds inversely to it (backlash), the less effective it will become.

Tactic number 5 is ridicule.  Whereas the Democratic Party is the party of personal destruction, it’s the Republican Party that excels at ridicule.  Vice President Joe Biden is the current example.  Ridicule is very effective because it is nearly impossible to counter attack and it infuriates the person ridiculed, often prompting a reaction that works to the ridiculer’s advantage.

Tactic number 4 is hypocrisy.  No one lives up to their own beliefs every hour of every day of every year.  When an opponent slips, call them on it.  It works better against the Right than it does against the Left.  As we have learned from the book, the far Left has lower standards and is less likely to condemn one of their own for violating them.  Herman Cain was quickly destroyed by unproven allegations of improper sexual advances.  Bill Clinton’s illicit sexual activity went far beyond improper advances yet his popularity within his Party, even among the women, suffered only minor decline.

One more tactic deserves mention and that’s number 12.  How can there be a price for a successful attack?  The book explains “You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy [Alinsky commonly refers to those with opposing views as the enemy] in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying ‘You’re right-We don’t know what to do about this.  Now you tell us’”.

Radical Left leaders know issues are not for solving while the ‘enemy’ is still in control.  Issues are tools for building discontent with the status quo, a necessary step in the process of deposing those in control.  To solve an issue is to waste it.

If only two things are learned from studying this chapter they should be, (1) the realization that, in politics, ridicule and personal attacks are not spontaneous reactions; they carefully planned and organized tactics chosen as part of an overall strategy, (2) there are no standards of truth or relevance standing behind them.

-o 0 o-


Continuing with the chapter by chapter series on Rules for Radicals, today we add Comments about the chapter called In the Beginning

Synopsis of the chapter entitled In the Beginning
The talent to organize a community seldom comes from within the community itself.  When a new organizer arrives on the scene he is greeted with suspicion.  Therefore, the first order of business is to establish his credentials, to gain acceptance and trust.  People in the community will ask “Who’s the cat?” “What’s he asking all those questions for?” “Is he really the cops or the FBI?” ” What’s his bag?” “What’s in it for him?” Who’s he working for?”, etc.

To gain the peoples trust a new organizer must show a intense anger over some issue.  Expressing love for the community accomplishes nothing.  It is only a sign of meekness.  Anger, on the other hand, unites the organizer with the people in a common cause.  It builds faith, faith in the ability and power of the organizer to bring change.

The organizer “is to maneuver and bait the establishment so they will attack him as a dangerous enemy. The word enemy is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people, …but is not enough to endow him with the special qualities that induce fear and thus give him his own power against the establishment. This need is met by the establishment’s use of the brand dangerous”.  That is to say, the organizer’s credentials are not fully established in the community until he has managed to get himself branded by the establishment as both an enemy and a dangerous one.

“The organizer’s job is to inseminate an invitation for himself, to agitate, introduce ideas, get people pregnant with hope and a desire for change and to identify you as the person most qualified for this purpose.”  “Power is the reason for being of an organization. Power and organization are one and the same. When those in the status quo turn and label you an agitator, they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function – to agitate to the point of conflict”.

The largest training center for Socialist activists in the United States is a community organizer training institute in Chicago called The Midwest Academy.  Once their training is complete, organizers go to wherever they are most needed which is seldom back to their own community.  They come as strangers to a new neighborhood, hence the need to be pro-active in establishing acceptance.

The Alinsky method for doing that is to stir the pot and get people really mad about something.  Then present yourself as the best hope for improvement and change.  Hugo Chavez came to power by firing up his people against the United States, going as far as to say the U.S. was planning to invade and conquer Venezuela.  At a global warming conference in the Netherlands the Socialist dictator said the U.S. has sent intelligence agents, war ships and spy planes to the Dutch islands of Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire in preparation for a possible military invasion.  We laugh but in Venezuela the story works.

Obama started out as a community organizer he chose to use asbestos removal as an issue at the Altgeld Gardens complex in the Chicago area.  On a larger scale the favorite targets of Socialism have long been the rich, the oil companies and the banks.

The professor makes it abundantly clear that the development of anger and rage within a community to the point where the masses are ready to be led into conflict is not a by-product; it is the function of a community organizer.  This was Obama’s world.  Now that he is President he is governing the only way he knows.  According to the Alinsky model, harmony is counter-productive.  You need a crisis.  When you have one you should never let it go to waste.  If you don’t have a crisis, then make or allow one to develop.

It would be a serious omission to leave this chapter without mentioning Alinsky’s admonition not to love your neighbor, but if you must, keep it under wraps because it’s a sign of weakness.  There is no statement that better expresses the difference between the leaders and the led on the left.  It gives understanding to Stalin’s phrase “useful idiots”.


Continuing with the chapter by chapter series on Rules for Radicals, today we add our Comments about the chapter called Communication.

Synopsis of the chapter entitled Communication
If you can’t communicate, you can’t agitate.  Therefore the ability to communicate is the one quality an organizer absolutely must have.  To communicate the organizer must, 1) speak in familiar terms the people understand and 2) listen.  He must talk in terms familiar to the people he seeks as his power base.  Typically, this requires talking down when speaking to the people he is organizing.

As an example, take the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima; an organizer who stresses the multiple thousands of people who died will not communicate well with his audience.  Numbers with lots of zeros in them are outside the experience of most people.  However, if he tells the personal story of a single family including the details of their suffering, the organizer will reach his people.  Family problems and personal tragedies are within everyone’s realm of experience.

By the same token, a leader should not speak of issues in “generalities like sin or immorality or the good life or morals.  They must be this immorality of this slum landlord with this tenement where these people suffer”.

When planning the American Revolution founder John Adams said “There ought to be no less than three or four killed so we will have martyrs for the Revolution, but there must be no more than ten, because after you get beyond that number we no longer have martyrs but simply a sewage problem.”

The first thing to note is the goal the author sets out – to agitate, stir up emotions.  Beyond that, this chapter offers some good advice; nothing will be accomplished unless you are able to communicate well with your constituency.  It is also true you won’t reach them by speaking above their heads and that little heart wrenching stories reach an audience in a way the big picture does not.

Barack Obama is very proficient at speaking in the terms the people he is addressing can understand.  Here is what writer Wayne Root had to say about the President’s “put on your marching shoes” speech at the Black Caucus Foundation’s Annual Legislative Conference in September 2011.

“When speaking before black audiences, President Obama tends to be more charismatic in his delivery. He just plays the room differently — gripping and galvanizing, with a preacher-like cadence that can sometimes rise to a holler at points of emphasis.”

“Throughout our history, change has often come slowly. Progress often takes time,” he said. “It’s never easy. And I never promised easy. Easy has never been promised to us. But we have had faith. We’ve had that good kind of crazy that says, ‘You can’t stop marching.’ “

Obama continued in this vein, with knowing references to the civil rights heroes honored during the night’s awards ceremony. “Even when folks are hitting you over the head, you can’t stop marching. Even when they’re turning the hoses on you, you can’t stop,” he said, building into an oratory crescendo that had the crowd cheering him on.

The author uses the alleged quote of John Adams to teach the method of communicating by invoking emotions.  Senator Inhofe gave us a recent example of this method employing the emotion of fear.  The Senator showed a video on April 25, 2012 of an EPA official teaching his philosophy of enforcement to his staff about 2 yrs earlier.  The subject, perhaps better said the target, was the oil companies.  The official said his philosophy

“was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean.  They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.  Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

The Romans simply killed a few people arbitrarily to serve as examples of the consequences they might face if they rebelled against a Roman dictate.  That is one sure way to communicate to an audience that they had better toe the line.

However, with respect to the quotation, there is no evidence Adams ever said any such thing nor would it be correct to say he planned the American Revolution.  A search of internet validators turns up several investigations into the source of the remark about the need for martyrs but none of them found any evidence of its having been said by Adams.  One validator offered the opinion that the originator was most likely none other than Saul Alinsky himself.


Continuing with the chapter by chapter series on Rules for Radicals, today we add Comments about the chapter called A word About Words.

Synopsis of the chapter entitled A Word About Words
Words that are soft-sounding and peaceful are soporific and ineffective. Such words are inappropriate for our purposes because “In the politics of life we are concerned with the slaves and the Caesars, not the vestal virgins”. The word “power” is often maligned but fear not to use it. “To know power and not fear it is essential to its constructive use and control. In short, life without power is death; a world without power would be a ghostly wasteland, a dead planet!”.

Self Interest
“The myth of altruism as a motivating factor in our behavior could arrive and survive only in a society bundled in the sterile gauze of New England puritanism and Protestant morality …. It is one of the classic American fairy tales”.

“To the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word…. If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you’re 30 percent ahead.”

Ego is self confidence. The community organizer’s “ego must be so all-pervading that the personality of the organizer is contagious, that it converts the people from despair to defiance, creating a mass ego”.

The word “conflict” is much maligned in the media and by Madison Avenue [the advertising industry]. However, “Conflict is the central core of a free and open society”.

A Word About Words, the title is intriguing but the content is very disappointing. Judging by the title one would expect to read about some clever and devious ways in which various words could be employed by a community organizer to further the activist’s agenda.  However, the chapter is little more than a revelation of the depth of the sullen author’s cynicism and obsession with power.

Thankfully the chapter is a short one.


Continuing with the chapter by chapter series on Rules for Radicals, today we add our Comments about the chapter called Of Means and Ends.

Synopsis of the chapter entitled Of Means and Ends
The author begins a discussion of political action ethics by saying “The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s statement that “conscience is the virtue of observers and not agents of action; in action, 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”.  Alinsky puts this in his own words as “He who sacrifices the mass good for his own personal conscience… doesn’t care enough for people to be corrupted for them.

The community organizer is given eleven rules for guidance with respect to ethics.

(1) The first rule is “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with ones personal interest in the issue.”  That is to say, the more you care about the issue the less you should care about the methods you use to fight for it.

(2) “judgment of the ethics of means and ends is dependant on the political position of those making the judgment.”

(3) “in war the end justifies almost any means.”

(4) “judgment must be mad in the context of the times…” “ethical standards must be elastic to stretch in the times.”

(5) “concern with ethics increases with the number of means available…”

(6) “the less important the end…the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluation of means

(7) “success or failure is a mighty determinate of ethics.”

(8) the “morality of means depends on whether the means is being deployed at the time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”

(9) “any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as unethical.”

(10) “do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”

(11) Whatever your mission “goals must be phrased in terms like Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Of the Common Welfare or Pursuit of Happiness or Bread and Peace”.

The perennial question of whether ends justify means is a discussion for those who stand on the sides as observers accomplishing nothing themselves.  Ethical considerations should not be allowed to interfere with success.

It is glaringly obvious that Saul Alinsky teaches that the ends justify the means.  The theme throughout the chapter is that ethics are an impediment to accomplishment and thereby, in the final sense, not ethical at all.  Implied in this line of reasoning is the notion that achievement of the goal, which for Alinsky is revolution, will be a great benefit to the society and that there is no uncertainty about it.

The professor cites Johann Wolfgang von Goethe to support his rationalization.  Goethe was a highly esteemed German writer, poet and philosopher whose life spanned the 18th and 19th centuries.  A writer, poet and philosopher, his genius was in culture.  Politically Goethe was pragmatic.  He argued against a unified Germany, favoring instead the retention of the existing system of principalitarian dictatorships.  His famous premise that virtue lies in the intended result, not in the method employed to achieve the result is often quoted by radicals to justify their actions.  Howard Zinn, the noted Harvard historian was another proponent of this line of thought.  If lying about the facts of history would lead to a better world than telling the truth, then according to Zinn the historian is honor bound to lie about the facts.  Vice is turned into virtue and virtue into vice.

Alinsky’s 11 rules of ethics can be boiled down to 3 basic tenets.  An organizer’s ethics must be flexible, the more important the goal the less the organizer should be concerned about ethics and third, if a tactic was successful it was ethical.

Dictionary.com defines ethics as “rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.”  It is sad to say that Alinsky’s rules define the Left and much of the Democratic Party as  it is today.


Continuing with the chapter by chapter series on Rules for Radicals, today we add our Comments about the chapter called Purpose.  It’s the first chapter in the book immediately following the Prologue.

Synopsis of the chapter entitled Purpose
The first chapter is called Purpose.  It carries as a tagline this quote from the bible:

“The life of man upon earth is a warfare… Job 7:1”

There is a good reason to be optimistic although accomplishment of the goal is hopeless. If it’s hopeless, why do it?  It’s like a climber ascending a mountain whose summit is infinity and can never be reached. When asked why strive for the impossible, Mt. Everest climber Mallory said “Because it is there”.

This seems senseless until you read the very last line of the chapter –  “Happiness lies in the pursuit”. Fighting for the Revolution is the only thing that gives purpose to life.

In the second part of Purpose we learn that everyone falls into one of three groups, called the trinity of classes. The classes are defined as 1)the Haves, 2) the Have-Nots, and 3) the Have-Some-Want-Mores. As you might expect by now, all people in all the groups are miserable according to Saul Alinsky

The Haves
The Haves  “suffocate in their surplus” and cannot sleep because they “are living under the nightmare of possible threats to their possessions”.

The Have-Nots
The Have-Nots “are chained together by the common misery of poverty, rotten housing, disease, ignorance, political impotence and despair”.

The Have-Some-Want-Mores
The Have-Some-Want-Mores are psychologically disturbed “torn between [protecting] what they have, yet wanting change to get more”. They are “social and economic schizoids”. This group is Alinsky’s vision of the middle class

Out of 15 versions of the Bible only one translates Job7:1 as Alinsky presents it and that is the Douay-Rheims Bible.  The more popular King James Bible translates the same verse as “Is there not an appointed time to man on earth?”  The New Living Version best typifies the other translations with “Is not all human life a struggle?”  In the D-R version from which Professor Alinsky draws his quote the warfare is metaphorical.  The unfortunate plague of sickness and other ill fated turns of events that life has thrust upon Job are expressed as a war of circumstances against the beleaguered man.  The warfare is not a purpose as Alinsky implies, it is an affliction.

The professor revels in the fight.  Like a platoon leader in a mercenary army, Alinsky is there for the fight and cares little for the cause. This is not a new phenomenon for activists of Left.  I recall a ”Free Mumia Jamal” demonstration where a reporter interviewed one of the protesters who had come with a group of students all the way from Berkeley, California to Philadelphia to participate.  The young woman had no idea what Mumia had done or why he was in jail.  She had not come to free Mumia, she had come to demonstrate.

Nor is successful transformation of government a heartfelt goal of the professor.  Success would end the fight and the fight is his purpose.

What is one to think of a man who divides all the world into a trinity of groups and asserts that all members of all three groups are miserable?  No allowance is made for any living person to be content.  Alinsky was a genius, make no mistake about that, but genius is not common sense.  Like a true idiot savant, his genius was very narrow.  It also was aided by a faulty moral compass as we shall see in the next chapter called Of Means and Ends.

The compulsion of the Left to divide people into classes is in evidence here.  Whereas the Right tends to see circumstances of people who are given equal opportunity, largely as a product of themselves, the Left does not believe equal opportunity exists.  No thought is given to the mobility of individuals from one economic class to the next.  The system is the problem and it’s the system that must be changed.  The radical’s solution is to bring up groups perceived as victims by bringing down other groups perceived to be oppressors.

I am inclined to say envy is in evidence also, but I am not so sure.  Certainly envy is a major factor with the professor’s followers but Alinsky himself seems content in his role.  If his acolytes won their kingdom, he would feel out of place in it.


This Post begins a series on the book Rules for Radicals by Professor Saul Alinsky.  During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama proudly proclaimed his experience as a community organizer.  The professor is known as the Godfather of community organizing.  Hillary Clinton wrote her Wellesley College thesis on the life and work of Saul Alinsky.  Chris Matthews stated on his MSNBC Hardball program that Saul Alinsky is one of his heroes.  Who is this man Alinsky and what did he teach?  Let’s go to the book and find out.

At the front of the book, even before the Prologue, Alinsky writes a brief tribute to Lucifer the devil.  Alinsky admires the devil, holding him in high regard because he succeeded in winning a kingdom for himself.

The author’s prologue is a litany of misery. In his view, the world is a thoroughly miserable place. The prologue is replete with phrases like these — “the outcome of hopelessness and despair is morbidity” and “there is a feeling of death overhanging the nation”.

Alinsky correctly cites Leftist radicals as completely rejecting the common “goals of a well paid job, suburban home, automobile … and everything else that means success” to others.

Young radicals are unhappy because they see only the faults in the world, and no purpose in life. They are in a constant search for themselves. The middle class and affluent are mired in the likes of divorce and disillusionment. The whole world is such a discouraging place that anyone who is happy in it must be blind.

Alinsky seldom speaks about changing America. He talks mostly about changing the World.  His vision of ubiquitous despondency transcends domestic locus.

Revolution with some violence is likely to be required in order to wrest the power of government from those now in control. But revolution must come at the end of the process, not at the beginning. A successful transition of government must be directed like a three act play –  first set the stage, then develop the plot, and finally conclude with the main event. The function and duty of a community organizer is to direct this process.

Act I is join the crowd, gain respect, acceptance and legitimacy.
Act II development, spread discontent, build support for Act III
Act III is the revolution itself, which of necessity will be violent.

Alinsky encourages radicals to fight but discourages those who are impatient and want to go directly to Act III.  Starting at the conclusion is ineffective and it will never bring success.

Commentary on the Prologue
There can be no doubt about the fact that we are dealing with a very morose individual.  Midway through the Prologue it would seem to be a great waste of time to read any further.  Just then he puts forth the analogy of the Three Act Play and suddenly begins to make sense.

Act I.  Join the crowd, gain respect, acceptance and legitimacy.  Of course!  We live in a democracy with a prosperous and sizable middle class.  Such a large segment of people are not going to surrender the fruits of their labor voluntarily.  The goal of complete transformation with redistribution of wealth must begin with stealth.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”  A statement generally accredited to Norman Thomas, six time candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket.

Obama completed Act I with his election.

Act II is development, spread discontent, build support for Act III.  Contented people do not cry for change.  Therefore discontent must be sown and spread across as wide a spectrum of the population as possible.  We see this today in class warfare by which Obama pits American against American.  The rich, the banks, the oil companies are all made out to be enemies of the people, every one, without exception.  Even riling up the Catholic Church has its advantages providing it does not cost Obama the election.  To solve that, the whole contraception issue is laid on the opposition.

Act II is where we are now.  Understanding what Act II is all about answers a lot of questions.  For one, harmony is not an objective, quite the opposite.  Later in the book, Alinsky tells the community organizer that the establishment will label him an agitator and they will be correct.  That is the job of a community organizer.  Act II is about fomenting unrest and building passion for change.  It is not possible to completely transform a democratic government when most of the people are content and united.

Act III is the revolution itself and Alinksy says violence is inevitable because both power and possessions will need to be wrested from those who have them and they will fight violently to keep it.  There is now general agreement among Socialist leaders today on Acts I and II but they are split on Act III.  Francis Scott Piven argues for the violent revolution option and the sooner the better.  The other school argues that attempts to overthrow the standing government by militant violence are destined to fail.  But with stealth and patience working within the democratic process America can be led to succumb into a socialist state at the ballot box.

Alinsky is basically in the non-militant camp but with the caveat that some violence will be unavoidable at the very end to complete the transformation.


Professor Paul Rahe minces no words in writing More Than a Touch of Malice, an article you can read at Ricochet.  He adds his wisdom to the argument that, far from committing a gaffe, Obama’s riling of the Catholic Church was a deliberate and well thought out step taken to define and solidify his base.

In 2008, when he first ran for the Presidency, Barack Obama posed as a moderate most of the time.  This time, he is openly running as a radical. His aim is to win a mandate for the fundamental transformation of the United States that he promised in passing on the eve of his election four years ago and that he promised again when he called his administration The New Foundation.

In the process, he intends to reshape the Democratic coalition – to bring the old hypocrisy to an end, to eliminate those who stand in the way of the final consolidation of the administrative entitlements state, to drive out the faithful Catholics once and for all, to jettison the white working class, and to build a new American regime on a coalition of  highly educated upper-middle class whites, feminists, African-Americans, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, and those belonging to the public-sector unions. To Americans outside this coalition, he intends to show no mercy.

Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, taught that transforming a nation with a prosperous middle class like the United States into a Marxist socialist society could only be accomplished if approached as a three act play:

Act I – join the crowd, gain respect, acceptance and legitimacy.

Act II – develop the theme, spread discontent, and build a following for Act III

Act III – the act of final transformation which Alinsky says will of necessity, be violent.

Act I is complete.  The Occupy movement opened Act II; there is ample discontent.  It only needs to be channeled, fanned and kept alive.  “Those damned Regressives, now they want to take away your sex life”.  That will do it.  That’s the Catholic flap.

Act III…, there will be no Act III; we will see to that in November.  But if there were, the curtain would open in January with an Inauguration Proclamation declaring, “I, Barack Hussein Obama, am the way, the truth and the light; there is no way out of this mess but by me”.  And America would be on the road to becoming a Marxist Socialist society.

Bob B