Publius Returns

Saul Alinsky


The Malevolent Underbelly of Protest

Protest is at least as old as social interaction. Protest occurs in third world countries stricken with poverty as well as more economically prosperous countries waxing toward revolution.

We are not unaware.

Protest is, of course, much easier in nations that are free. That begs the question: What nation is free? We used to think ours was. Some still do. But increasing government intervention is eroding our freedom every day. At least we can still gather, rally, and protest. Or can we?

We have reasons to protest.

The ever increasing size of government is one of them. We understand that government must grow. As population grows so must some government staffs to process and accommodate a larger population. We understand fully that is not the cause of our protest. We protest the unnecessary and unreasonable expansion of government. Taxes increase. We understand that as well, but we protest unnecessary and unreasonable tax. The list goes on.

But the real protest, the current “movement” of protest, runs much deeper.

The current grassroots movement is awakening to much more than taxes. It is beginning to understand that there is deepening assault on our core, cultural values. The list of Czars and their backgrounds help with that understanding. The present regime glares at us with distaste, at the Constitution with disregard, and at the traditional values and culture we endear with disdain. The political machine seems to be a nation unto itself with little regard for its citizens. We protest the assault on our cultural values.

Is that true only of Politicians? No. There is a generation of our citizens who have grown up on the ideas expounded by the liberal progressive movement. They have embraced the left, seduced by its autonomy and the ability it gives them to act irresponsibly, to see the personal benefits and soft soap of relativism, and to allow the government to take care of all their needs. It, as well, leads to the decay of productivity, endorses a behavior of sloth, betrays the free market system, and promotes a social decay that will lead to national collapse.

It also embraces multiculturalism, the variety that is destroying Europe. And with it, the sovereignty of property is threatened.

And so, the silent majority, the majority of Americans (?), begins to perk up its ears, to assemble, and to protest.

That begs the question: How do we protest? Better put: How do we most effectively protest? There are some who protest openly, straight forwardly, and unabashedly. Ms. Malkin is a conservative columnist and blogger who is committed to her point of view, pulls no punches, and speaks candidly and openly. Her form of protest is an approach that has reached millions and led to Americans being better informed of the issues, and I dare say spurred to action to protest. Does the left not do the same in opposition to conservatives? Read MoveOn.org, KOS, and other left wing blogs.

But there is a much more covert, underhanded, and malevolent form of protest.

Some Tea Party groups are beginning to entertain, even use, the tactics supplied in the writings of Saul Alinsky. Alinsky disliked the left and the young anti-war radicals of the 60’s. He tried to help the poor and those he deemed ravaged by corporations, forgotten by the government, and whose enclaves could not fight their way to success and prosperity.

Alinsky was a communist of sorts. He spent his life as an organizer for what he saw as the underprivileged, and he is famous for his books Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. In these books he laid out a list of rules by which the Community Organizer could disrupt the establishment, the opposition, and the status quo. He is reminiscent of Marx. But can one strip from it his communist ideology and embrace the so called neutrality of his tactics?

During the anti-Vietnam-War movement, many young radical activists began to use Alinsky’s rules. Alinsky was not particularly happy about this development, but it persisted. His rules seem benign enough at first glance. He tells people to fight within the system. But he also decries the notion of allowing morals to get in the way. His theme revolves around morals being situational to the struggle. And is it not?

Yet, his rules seem benign enough and strike people as perfectly logical. Why not? Fight fire with fire, right? And within the system. But the underbelly of Alinsky’s construct and most of those using his tactics were driven to be socialists, irreligious, underhanded, immoral, and downright fraudulent in order to accomplish their goals. In the end, they became ruthlessly relativistic, embracing the contradictions of Marx.

Be careful about being fooled by what appears to be benign rhetoric.

Alinsky followers believe that the ends justify the means, period. Many make the argument that what is important in life is “taking the high ground” at any cost. All else be damned. Whatever must be done, shall. Alinsky, whether intentional or not, spawned sociopathism bordering on psychopathism, following in the footsteps of Hitler, Gehring, Marx, Pol Pot, and others of their ilk. Do you want to be associated with their tactics?

Sociopathism is an antisocial behavior suggesting one who is unconcerned about the adverse consequences for others of one's actions. A psychopath is a person with a personality disorder indicated by a pattern of lying, exploitiveness, heedlessness, arrogance, and lack of empathy and remorse. Does that strike a chord about our own government?

These are the same tactics that brought people to spit on us as we debarked the plane from Southeast Asia in1969, exactly 40 years ago, while others called us baby killers. It is the same logic being applied to try our Navy Seals, to try the planner of the WTC bombing in civil court, and to judge every move our troops make as they are monitored by the media. And they are blatantly exhibited by Alinsky’s twisted social construct and, hence, his tactics wrought by ideology. The people who assaulted me were indoctrinated and led by these so called “Community Organizers.” One could not separate one’s despicable tactics from one’s ideology.

Alinsky’s were a set of tactics based on his ideology.

The fact is: tactics are themselves ideological in concept and cannot, by definition, be neutral. Tactics are a subset of, and driven by, goals. And strategy is based on, and driven by, the goals of ideology. While that is necessary, it, as well, requires an understanding of ideology, and ideology is used to subvert it. Hitler’s goals embraced the ideology of a pure Aryan race and drove him in attempting to eradicate an entire ethnic group. His tactic to throw them into the ovens obviously appeared moral to him. And what better way to reduce the bulk of some 6 million people? There is another way to put the destructive effects on followers of Alinsky’s tactics :

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

In other words, if you are willing to take the path and use the tactics that spawned sociopaths, you may inadvertently become one of them. Remember that one of the traditional attributes of America is that, opposed to the opinion of our President, KOS, MoveOn.org and the Young Turks, we are and have been a Judeo/Christian culture. If you do not support Judeo/Christian values, what do you support? Is the communist ideology of Saul Alinsky that of the majority of Americans? It certainly is the ideology of those we oppose.

I remember the tactics of Jerry Rubin, Jane Fonda, John Kerry, Alan Ginsberg, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and their ilk. Is it not ironic to realize that their protest during the 60’s created the very problems that we find ourselves up against today? And not only that, but to realize that the leaders of today came from that group: the neo, ultra left, youth movements.

One must take careful note of the effective social change they created. They became grotesque forms of malcontent in the hands of people who believe any means are justified by the vision of an end, and morality is something that gets in the way. The acts of Jane Fonda and Bill Ayers are testimony to misunderstanding the rules of Alinsky … or are they?

The work of Michelle Malkin is a case of straight up criticism. She ferrets out the facts and lays them on the table for everyone to see. Her rhetoric is plain, easy to understand, and not couched in the terms so often used by the new socialist statists. It is not newspeak nor duckspeak, but an honest presentation of the facts and an opinion about them. And with that, she has acted as a magnet to pull people into the movement. Why must we resort to the tactics of a known social, communist agitator the likes of Saul Alinsky? We must, however, remember who trained under him: President Obama, Hilary Clinton, his czars, and a great many of his supporters.

I say, let there be truth and light, not subversion and darkness. If we can get more people to research what is going on, we can make our voice heard at the polls and kick the new social engineers (sociopaths) out!

How do you think Obama, Reid, and Pelosi got elected? By tactics devoid of ideology?

There has got to be a better way. While denial is certainly not the way, are we sure that the tactics of Alinsky and Marx, scrubbed of communism and radical activism, are?