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.