Wicked Commentary

I received a booklet in the mail from the Freedom Center, a David Horowitz organization.  The name of the book is “Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution, The Alinsky Model” by Mr. David Horowitz who is very familiar with radicals methods.

I am going to print excerpts from the book, not necessarily in the order in which they are written in the book.  The following excerpt makes clear what we are up against. The book explains why radicals follow no ethical or moral code. Any means justifies the goal, the Revolution.

From Page 30 of the booklet,   “Revolutionary War”

” The first chapter of Alinsky’s manual is called “The Purpose” and is designed to lay out the radical goal.  Its epitaph is taken from the Book of Job:   “The life of man upon earth is warfare”.

This is not an invitation to democratic politics, as understood by our American Founders.  The American system is about tolerance and compromise, and bringing disparate factions into a working partnership.

The Founders devised a system of checks and balances to temper the passions of the people and prevent factions from  going to war.  It is because this is the reality of American democracy that revolutionary warfare, which is not about compromise, must be conducted through deception. Thus the rules for the organizers of revolutions, laid down by Alinsky, are rules for deception.

Alinsky’s book could easily be called Machiavellian Rules for Radicals, after the man who devised principles of statehood and advice for rulers in  his book.

In Alinsky’s view, the difference between the unethical behavior counseled by Machiavelli and the unethical behavior he would like to see practiced by radicals lies solely in the fact that their political enemies are different.

“The Prince” was written by Machiavelli for the HAVES on how to hold power.

Alinsky writes, “Rules for Radicals” is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away”.

For Alinsky, politics is a zero sum exercise, because it is war.  No matter what Alinsky radicals say publicly or how moderate they appear, they are at war.

This provides them with a great tactical advantage since other actors actually embrace the system, which commits all parties to compromise and to the peaceful resolution of conflicts.  It commits them to a pragmatism of ends as well as means.  Not every wish can be satisfied. 

By contrast, Alinsky radicals have the unwavering end, which is to attack the so-called Haves until they are finally defeated.  In other words, to undermine the system that allows them to earn and possess more than others.  Such a system, according to the radicals, is one of “social injustice”, and what they want is “social justice”.  The unwavering end of such radicals is a communism of results.

For tactical reasons radicals will make many compromises along the way;  but their unfailing purpose – the vision that guides them – is to conduct a war against the system that in their view makes social injustice possible.

When you are in a war – when you think of yourself as in a war – there is no middle ground.  Radicals perceive their opponents of their causes as enemies on a battlefield, and they set out to destroy them by demonizing and discrediting them.  Personally!  The politics of personal destruction are an inevitable weapon of choice for radicals.  If your goal is a just world, then the moral code you live by requires you to wage war without quarter.

Because conservatives embrace the system they believe in its rules of fairness and inclusion.  But these rules can also be used by its cynical enemies to destroy it.  As Alinsky’s hero Lenin put it, “The capitalists will sell us the rope to hang them”.  Or as Alinsky’s own “fourth rule of power tactics” puts it, “Make the enemy live up to their own rules”.

There is no real parallelism in the war which radicals have declared.  One side is fighting with a no-holds -barred battle plan against the system, while the other is trying to enforce its rules of fairness and pluralism. This is the Achilles’ heel of democracies and all radical spears are aimed in its direction.

Acorn activists have contempt for the election process because they don’t believe in the electoral system as it is constituted in a capitalist democracy. To them elections are already a fraud, an instrument of the rich, or as Alinsky prefers to call them, the Haves.  If the electoral system doesn’t serve “the people”, but is only an instrument of the Haves, then election fraud is justified as the path to a future that will serve the Have-Nots.  Only when a true representative of “the people” is elected can someone like Michelle Obama express pride in her country.

Until conservatives begin to understand exactly how dishonest radicals are and why,  it will be hard to defend the system under attack.  For radicals the noble end, creating a new world, justifies its means.  And if one actually believed, as they do, that it is possible to create heaven on earth, what institution would one not be justified in destroying to realize the future?

I believe it is obvious that if we conservatives keep fighting fair, being sensitive not wishing to destroy the opponent, we will never win this war. It has to be an all out battle on our part as well.

To read more of David Horowitz you can go to the link below. He has tons of information including articles and books to read.  He also has a list of  the radical networks on his site.  And many contributing writers.


Comments on: "Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution, The Alinsky Model" (11)

  1. goshawk3 said:

    Pepp, I’m glad you decided to put this information out on the net. I only wish we could get it to every person in the country. The book explains very clearly how we can easily loose our freedom and country. And Ovomit is full speed ahead trying to destroy our Republic!


  2. Good post.

    The reality is that conservatives believe in a modicum of rules whereas liberals have none whatsoever. It is difficult for conservatives to resort to tactics that they deplore.

    That said, a bit more “Mr Stick-in-the-eye” honesty would go a long way. The civility practiced my many has gotten us where we are now.


    • HN,

      What you say is so true. We as conservatives do not like to put ourselves in the gutter with the liberals. It is difficult to resort to those kind of tactics. That is because we believe in ethical and moral tactics.

      Now, the way Mr. Horowitz explains it, we will have to fight like they do in order to hold onto our country. As he states these radicals are at war with us. We have to start approaching this as a war too to save our country. We must fight back with all we’ve got.

      Yes, civility that we practice is part of the reason we are where we are. I agree on that. So, as far as I’m concerned civility for now needs to be thrown out to fight these radicals. Or our country will be gone.


  3. Good post. I’ve said for a LONG time the ONLY way to pound these suckers is to use THEIR tactics. When in a war,you do what you must to win it. No one remembers who came in second.


    • clyde,

      Thanks. Well you are absolutely right. We have to fight fire with fire. The radicals have no rules for themselves and we can’t win by being wusses. We need to fight back and hard. Also we should just use some of their tactics against them and see how long they last.


  4. cromwellswar said:

    That is interesting thank you. I like the cut of yer jib 🙂


    • Cromwellswar,

      Welcome to our blog and do come back please. We are so happy when we get new readers and especially ones who comment. We love all of our readers and they become like family to us. So it’s really nice to hear from someone across the pond as they say.

      Thank you for being interested. I used to sail and could cut the jib really well. So I like the mention of liking the cut of my jib. 🙂


  5. Gar Swaffar said:

    Thank you!


    • Gar,
      You are welcome. It came to my attention that some people did not get the email notification about this article. I thought the article was important enough to reblog for those who did not see it.


      • This is a wonderful post & very informative & interesting
        information, as well. David Horowitz is a truly gifted &
        talented writer; his seminal work that opened my eyes
        was “Destructive Generation”, which I highly recommend
        to all who are not familiar with the genesis of the radical
        movement from which ideology Barack Obama was steeped
        & from which his mentor, Frank Marshal Davis, drew all of
        his inspiration. It is important to familiarize ourselves with
        the enemy, as Sun Tzu advises, in “The Art of War”.


We welcome all comments, opinions, rants, raves, and humor too

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: